ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Brett Kavanaugh , Christine Blasey Ford , Congressional hearings , Supreme Court nominees , Trump controversies

Reply
Old 11th July 2018, 10:28 AM   #81
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Hellbound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day...
Posts: 12,530
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
I don't necessarily agree. In my (non-religious) view, I am perfectly at ease with moral ambiguities. Abortion and murder may be on the same spectrum and somewhere on that spectrum is a line between what is acceptable and what is not. I have no idea where exactly that line is. But I don't think I need to know that in order to determine that abortion is definitely on the allowable isde and murder is definitely not.
I wasn't necessarily saying that there's nothing ambiguous, just trying to point out the reasoning I think JoeMorgue meant.

The most common viewpoint (among non-religious) seems to be that the allowable line is about the capacity for pain and suffering (versus the rights of the woman to her own body).

The anti-abortion framing of abortion as murder is attempting to draw a moral conclusion that either devalues a woman's right to her body, or over-values the rights of the fetus (implying some special value to the fetus beyond it's capacities).

I think JoeMorgue's line was about the second option there, and was just trying to clarify that.
Hellbound is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 10:41 AM   #82
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 7,746
Originally Posted by Hellbound View Post
The most common viewpoint (among non-religious) seems to be that the allowable line is about the capacity for pain and suffering (versus the rights of the woman to her own body).
"Quickening" used to be the common law standard. Bill Moyers wrote/quoted this authority:.

Quote:
Even the definition of abortion was different. In early America, as in Europe, “What we would now identify as an early induced abortion was not called an ‘abortion’ at all,” writes Leslie Reagan in When Abortion Was a Crime: Women, Medicine, and Law in the United States, 1867-1973. “If an early pregnancy ended, it had ‘slipp[ed] away,’or the menses had been ‘restored.’ At conception and the earliest stage of pregnancy before quickening, no one believed that a human life existed; not even the Catholic Church took this view.”
Minoosh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2018, 10:09 AM   #83
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,298
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
"Quickening" used to be the common law standard. Bill Moyers wrote/quoted this authority:.
Even the definition of abortion was different. In early America, as in Europe, “What we would now identify as an early induced abortion was not called an ‘abortion’ at all,”
I saw the movie The Quickening. Trust me, it was an abortion.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 220px-Highlander_II.jpg (22.5 KB, 0 views)
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2018, 10:17 AM   #84
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,471
Barring some calamity, this guy's going to get confirmed, and probably with some red state Dem support. I don't think this is the hill to die on. We need to control the Senate in case something happens to RBG in the next two years.
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2018, 10:42 AM   #85
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 29,045
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
Barring some calamity, this guy's going to get confirmed, and probably with some red state Dem support. I don't think this is the hill to die on. We need to control the Senate in case something happens to RBG in the next two years.
This reminds me of something Amy Chozick says in her account of the Clinton 2016 campaign, Chasing Hillary. The voting models used by the campaign made it clear that Clinton would win the election handily. Therefore, they decided to divert some of the campaign funds to down-ticket races, specifically to ensure that Democrats won not only the Presidency, but also the Senate.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2018, 10:50 AM   #86
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,471
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
This reminds me of something Amy Chozick says in her account of the Clinton 2016 campaign, Chasing Hillary. The voting models used by the campaign made it clear that Clinton would win the election handily. Therefore, they decided to divert some of the campaign funds to down-ticket races, specifically to ensure that Democrats won not only the Presidency, but also the Senate.
I don't know why it would remind you of that. Clinton was the favorite to win. The Senate Dems, on their own, cannot stop this nomination.
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2018, 11:11 AM   #87
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 29,045
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
I don't know why it would remind you of that. Clinton was the favorite to win. The Senate Dems, on their own, cannot stop this nomination.
It reminds me of that because of the importance of controlling the Senate. The Clinton campaign's instincts were right, even if their predictive models were wrong.

It's also especially interesting in the context of some high-profile Republicans urging conservatives to vote Democrat in the specials and mid-terms. Trump isn't particularly conservative, in my opinion. And GOP politicians aren't particularly conservative, either. As far as my political ideals are concerned, about the only thing the GOP has to offer is that they are sometimes not as bad as the Democrats. About the only consistently conservative thing about the GOP are their Supreme Court picks. So having Republicans in the Executive and Legislative branch is nice, even though it doesn't move my conservative needle much at all. But if it's a question of having SCOTUS picks or sending a message to Senate Republicans in the mid-terms, the choice seems obvious.

You say, "we need to control the Senate", and I say, "we sure do, but who do you mean, 'we', kemosabe?"

Last edited by theprestige; 12th July 2018 at 11:17 AM.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2018, 11:15 AM   #88
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,471
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
It reminds me of that because of the importance of controlling the Senate. The Clinton campaign's instincts were right, even if their predictive models were wrong.

It's also especially interesting in the context of some high-profile Republicans urging conservatives to vote Democrat in the specials and mid-terms. Trump isn't particularly conservative, in my opinion. And GOP politicians aren't particularly conservative, either. As far as my political ideals are concerned, about the only thing the GOP has to offer is that they are sometimes not as bad as the Democrats. About the only consistently conservative thing about the GOP are their Supreme Court picks. So having Republicans in the Executive and Legislative branch is nice, even though it doesn't move my conservative needle much at all. But if it's a question of having SCOTUS picks or sending a message to Senate Republicans in the mid-terms, the choice seems obvious.
Are you kidding? Trump wanted to punish women for having abortions. The GOP's views on women are like something out of the Handmaid's Tale.
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2018, 11:20 AM   #89
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 15,688
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
It reminds me of that because of the importance of controlling the Senate. The Clinton campaign's instincts were right, even if their predictive models were wrong.

It's also especially interesting in the context of some high-profile Republicans urging conservatives to vote Democrat in the specials and mid-terms.
It is easy to believe you are leading the parade, when you are marching in the same direction the others want to go. George Will and Max Boot and the other never-Trumpers are going to learn that lesson.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2018, 11:27 AM   #90
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 29,045
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
Are you kidding? Trump wanted to punish women for having abortions. The GOP's views on women are like something out of the Handmaid's Tale.
The evangelical wing of the conservative movement are retarded asshats and I hope they all die in a fire. I don't consider their extremism to be rational or healthy, and it makes up no part of the conservative values that I hold. I also don't unquestioningly accept your characterization of those views. I mention this only to make it clear. I don't wish to debate your characterization here, nor anywhere else.

I also don't consider any of the "conservative" noises that come out of Trump's mouth to be sincere expressions of a conservative value system. The main advantage there is that the President doesn't have to be sincerely conservative, to nominate conservative justices. A Clinton White House would not have been sincerely conservative either (obviously), and it would also not even have the one advantage of tending to nominate conservative justices.

Last edited by theprestige; 12th July 2018 at 11:28 AM.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2018, 08:19 AM   #91
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,471
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
The evangelical wing of the conservative movement are retarded asshats and I hope they all die in a fire. I don't consider their extremism to be rational or healthy, and it makes up no part of the conservative values that I hold. I also don't unquestioningly accept your characterization of those views. I mention this only to make it clear. I don't wish to debate your characterization here, nor anywhere else.

I also don't consider any of the "conservative" noises that come out of Trump's mouth to be sincere expressions of a conservative value system. The main advantage there is that the President doesn't have to be sincerely conservative, to nominate conservative justices. A Clinton White House would not have been sincerely conservative either (obviously), and it would also not even have the one advantage of tending to nominate conservative justices.
You sure do a lot of distancing yourself from conservatives.
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2018, 10:27 PM   #92
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,837
I am curious what Americans think of their supreme court.
I read a couple of Scalia judgements that showed how he considered facts to be completely subservient to law. He was a disgusting human being.

Consider that it is completely non controversial to say that Brendan Dassey had nothing to do with the crime he is jailed for, and that the supreme court have denied him a hearing without comment.

What should we think of this court? It looks from the outside to be staffed by criminals, and that replacing one judge with another is irrelevant to its function.

Last edited by Samson; 13th July 2018 at 10:32 PM.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2018, 07:24 AM   #93
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 29,045
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
You sure do a lot of distancing yourself from conservatives.
I'm distancing myself from a stereotype you keep trying to force me into. Why not try to talk to me about what I actually think and believe?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2018, 08:53 AM   #94
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,471
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I'm distancing myself from a stereotype you keep trying to force me into. Why not try to talk to me about what I actually think and believe?
I tried. I asked you: knowing what you know now, would you still have voted for Trump? I got no reply. If you DID reply, my apologies.
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2018, 09:31 AM   #95
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 29,045
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
I tried. I asked you: knowing what you know now, would you still have voted for Trump? I got no reply. If you DID reply, my apologies.
If you asked that, I must have missed it. Let's start over: Point me at the post where you asked that, and I'll pick up the conversation from there.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2018, 09:47 AM   #96
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,471
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
If you asked that, I must have missed it. Let's start over: Point me at the post where you asked that, and I'll pick up the conversation from there.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...g#post12351327
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2018, 10:01 AM   #97
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 29,045
Done and done.

Does this mean you're over trying to stereotype me as an evangelical extremist, or are you going lash out like this every time I don't answer one of your questions?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th July 2018, 02:16 PM   #98
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,298
So, Trump's argument about abortion: He understand's women's concerns, but don't worry about me stacking the court with anti-abortionists, because it will take a long time for any court cases to actually reach the supreme court.

https://www.bustle.com/p/trump-says-...cerned-9767823
"There’s also a very good chance there won’t be a vote...We’ll have to see what happens. A case has to get up there. It could be a long time before a case ever gets up there."

Problems with that argument:
- Trump himself has talked about banning abortion.
- There are already court cases being prepared which could lead to a quick challenge against abortion (I think it took ~3 years for a texas anti-abortion law to get challenged and then reach the supreme court, so assuming such a vote will either never happen or will take a long time is simply wrong.)
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th July 2018, 02:50 PM   #99
sylvan8798
Master Poster
 
sylvan8798's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,736
What happened to the overturning happening automatically?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qb6da7ZPegE
__________________
DoYouEverWonder - Engineers and architects don't have to design steel buildings not to collapse from gravity. They already conquered gravity when they built it.

- Professional Wastrel
sylvan8798 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th July 2018, 02:58 PM   #100
ahhell
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,662
IMHO, the dems have really shot themselves in the foot with the hyperbole in the medium term anyway. Short term its probably great for getting turnout. In the long term it will probably be a wash but there will be a point where the worst predictions(not coincidentally the ones that get the most play) don't come true and folks will stop listening.
ahhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2018, 11:29 AM   #101
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,298
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
The evangelical wing of the conservative movement are retarded asshats and I hope they all die in a fire.
...
I also don't consider any of the "conservative" noises that come out of Trump's mouth to be sincere expressions of a conservative value system. The main advantage there is that the President doesn't have to be sincerely conservative, to nominate conservative justices.
You see, this is the problem that I (and I suspect others) have with your claims....

You claim that you dislike the evangelical Christian republicans... yet by being so keen to see conservative judges nominated, you are basically giving everything that those evangelicals want. Hard to picture you wanting them to "die in a fire" when you both seem to want the same thing.... a supreme court that is happy eliminating abortion rights and abusing minorities.

Its a little like saying you hate obesity, while at the same time encouraging people to go on the 'all-lard and sugar' diet.
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2018, 09:50 AM   #102
Armitage72
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 2,148
How about overturning the constitutionality of independent counsels?

Quote:
Judge Brett Kavanaugh two years ago expressed his desire to overturn a three-decade-old Supreme Court ruling upholding the constitutionality of an independent counsel, a comment bound to get renewed scrutiny in his confirmation proceedings to sit on the high court.
Speaking to a conservative group in 2016, Kavanaugh bluntly said he wanted to "put the final nail" in a 1988 Supreme Court ruling. That decision, known as Morrison v. Olson, upheld the constitutionality of provisions creating an independent counsel under the 1978 Ethics in Government Act -- the same statute under which Ken Starr, for whom Kavanaugh worked, investigated President Bill Clinton. The law expired in 1999, when it was replaced by the more modest Justice Department regulation that governs special counsels like Robert Mueller.
Armitage72 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2018, 11:14 AM   #103
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 18,419
Originally Posted by Armitage72 View Post
He has one of the Rings of Power.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2018, 12:00 PM   #104
ahhell
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,662
Originally Posted by Armitage72 View Post
Meh, its probably debatable but then, I'm just an unfrozen cavemen not a legal scholar. As its largely been replaced by the special counsel, I don't see why this would have much impact, especially with how badly Ken Starr worked out.
ahhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2018, 12:14 PM   #105
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 29,045
I wonder if it was his experience working on Ken Starr's investigation, that solidified Kavanaugh's opinion that such investigations probably weren't constitutional.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2018, 12:21 AM   #106
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 21,114
https://twitter.com/SenSchumer/statu...69126411366401

Quote:
The Senate was just given an additional 42,000 pages of Kavanaugh documents the NIGHT BEFORE his confirmation hearing. This underscores just how absurd this process is. Not a single senator will be able to review these records before tomorrow.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2018, 07:25 AM   #107
KDLarsen
Illuminator
 
KDLarsen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,734
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
And Chuck Grassley doesn't give a rats posterior about any objections. His only objective is to steamroll this confirmation hearing through.

Edit: Frankly, if this keeps up, the Democrats should just stay away the next few days. Let the Republicans field their softball questions and vote him through by themselves, as it would be the only way to ensure that Kavanaugh's entire time as a justice would be tainted with an asterisk.

Last edited by KDLarsen; 4th September 2018 at 07:30 AM.
KDLarsen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2018, 08:32 AM   #108
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 29,045
Oh no! Not an asterisk! Won't that totally invalidate all his judgements?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2018, 09:27 AM   #109
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 73,316
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
I really have the wonder about the logical disconnect in the brains of some of Trump's supporters (such as the type that read InfoWars.) Here they are, so concerned about government conspiracies and overreach, yet they support Trump, who ended up nominating a judge who is likely to allow such overreach to continue.
Correction: they are concerned about Democrat overreach. When the overreach benefits them, it's ok. It's like Democracy itself, they're fine with it so long as it helps them. Otherwise, they have no problem bending it until it breaks, so long as they end up with most of the pieces.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2018, 09:28 AM   #110
BrooklynBaby
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 697
Democrats should present more serious support for abortion than the "Party For abortion and stick it in their faces" nonsense I've been seeing for years. There are many Americans whose support you will need if Roe V. Wade is overturned who find this very offensive. I'm sure there are many people like myself who aren't necessarily pro-abortion but don't want it to be made illegal, and you need a marketing approach that doesn't drive us away. Give us something we can actively support.
BrooklynBaby is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2018, 10:23 AM   #111
alfaniner
Penultimate Amazing
 
alfaniner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 18,488
I thought it was amusing how quickly Kavanaugh jumped up when he heard they were going on break. With all the water he's been sipping he must have had to go really badly!
__________________
Science is self-correcting.
Woo is self-contradicting.
alfaniner is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2018, 10:35 AM   #112
eeyore1954
Philosopher
 
eeyore1954's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 6,215
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Quote:
The Senate was just given an additional 42,000 pages of Kavanaugh documents the NIGHT BEFORE his confirmation hearing. This underscores just how absurd this process is. Not a single senator will be able to review these records before tomorrow.
Does anyone really believe the Democrats (or the Republicans) care what is in those documents?
eeyore1954 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2018, 10:42 AM   #113
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 21,114
Originally Posted by eeyore1954 View Post
Does anyone really believe the Democrats (or the Republicans) care what is in those documents?
Yes. And the 100,000 that still haven't been released at all.

Why wouldn't they care?
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2018, 10:45 AM   #114
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 40,575
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Yes. And the 100,000 that still haven't been released at all.

Why wouldn't they care?
They care to the extent that they're hoping to find dirt. But they've already made the decision to oppose him regardless of what's in those documents. They aren't waiting for information from those documents in order to make their decision.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2018, 10:50 AM   #115
crescent
Master Poster
 
crescent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,533
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
They care to the extent that they're hoping to find dirt. But they've already made the decision to oppose him regardless of what's in those documents. They aren't waiting for information from those documents in order to make their decision.
They are also hoping that there is enough dirt in those docs to make Kavanaugh unpalatable to more people, to start to put pressure on GOP senators and to help keep any wavering Democrats in-line.

Based on his previous rulings and previously released docs, that all seems a real possibility. Paint a picture of a tainted judge from a tainted administration.
crescent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2018, 10:57 AM   #116
eeyore1954
Philosopher
 
eeyore1954's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 6,215
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Yes. And the 100,000 that still haven't been released at all.

Why wouldn't they care?
Because for the most part their minds were mind up before he was even nominated.
eeyore1954 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2018, 10:57 AM   #117
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 21,114
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
They care to the extent that they're hoping to find dirt.
By "dirt" you mean "something that would clearly make him unfit for the job". If there's nothing like that in those files, then there's no reason not to release them all and to allow everybody the time to read them thoroughly, correct?

Quote:
But they've already made the decision to oppose him regardless of what's in those documents.
It's certainly true that some people deem him unfit for the job based on what of his past record has already been released. This, of course, doesn't imply that none of the people speaking out about this situation don't also care about transparency in these proceedings, or about the fact that if it goes through then a man who is under criminal investigation has been able to choose his own judge.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2018, 10:59 AM   #118
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 21,114
Originally Posted by eeyore1954 View Post
Because for the most part their minds were mind up before he was even nominated.
That doesn't follow.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2018, 11:11 AM   #119
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 40,575
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
By "dirt" you mean "something that would clearly make him unfit for the job".
No. I mean anything that they can use for political advantage. Something that proved he was unfit would qualify, but that's certainly not a requirement.

Quote:
If there's nothing like that in those files, then there's no reason not to release them all and to allow everybody the time to read them thoroughly, correct?
No, that's not correct. There are a number of other reasons for Republicans to want to hide those files, including setting a precedent for other Trump nominees, preventing the release of stuff that would embarrass somebody else, and preventing the release of something that might make Kavanaugh look bad but shouldn't actually be disqualifying.

Note that I'm not arguing that any such motives actually justify not releasing the files, but there are clearly other possibilities in play here.

Quote:
It's certainly true that some people deem him unfit for the job based on what of his past record has already been released.
Some people? Try basically every Democrat senator.

Quote:
This, of course, doesn't imply that none of the people speaking out about this situation don't also care about transparency in these proceedings
The senate doesn't care about transparency except to the extent that they can get political advantage from it. That cuts across party lines. I'm sure some of the people outside the senate calling for the release of the papers genuinely care about transparency, but this is hardly the first or the last example of a lack of transparency in government. It's fairly unremarkable in that respect. I'd like more transparency in general, but the reality is I'm unlikely to get it.

Quote:
or about the fact that if it goes through then a man who is under criminal investigation has been able to choose his own judge.
Yeah, not really. If the investigation turns up anything real and significant about Trump himself, the relevant legal remedy will be impeachment. In that event, the Chief Justice would preside over the trial in the senate, and that wouldn't be Kavanaugh or any other Trump-appointed judge. The Supreme Court would have no other role in impeachment proceedings, and even that role is pretty limited.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2018, 11:13 AM   #120
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 69,141
Originally Posted by KDLarsen View Post
And Chuck Grassley doesn't give a rats posterior about any objections. His only objective is to steamroll this confirmation hearing through.

Edit: Frankly, if this keeps up, the Democrats should just stay away the next few days. Let the Republicans field their softball questions and vote him through by themselves, as it would be the only way to ensure that Kavanaugh's entire time as a justice would be tainted with an asterisk.
I'd rather see his record exposed. And I hope exposing Kavanaugh's extremism embarrasses him personally into reconsidering those positions.

I'd like the Democratic Senators to play hypocritical clips of Republicans in the Kagen and Sotomayor hearings saying the exact same things they are arguing against now.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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 Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:04 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.