The Supreme Court

[---]

Any thoughts from our resident Court followers about the fact that this future Supreme Court Justice introduced himself to the public with a blatant lie whose only purpose was to sycophantically flatter the president’s ego?

Coming out of the gate with a propaganda-level falsehood on your way to the highest court in the land seems....not great?

Maybe it's just me, but the 300+ opinions he authored during his fifteen years on the appeals court seem more likely to be instructive about what to expect than anything uttered during an introductory exercise whose whole point is to flatter and wheedle and deliver exactly nothing of substance.

Maybe it’s just me, but they aren’t mutually exclusive, it is a revealing behavior, and we don’t have limited space to discuss.

This is like when some oily ESPN knob spends an entire segment analyzing the body language of a player or coach, convinced it reveals as much - or more! - about how that player or coach can be expected to perform as the weeks, months, and years of actual on-field performance that preceded this otherwise singularly oblique data point.

The noise of politics has completely consumed you.

[Norris]

Stupid McP, thinking the words people say mean anything.

[---]

Stupid McP, thinking the words people say mean anything.

Talk is cheap. Far more meaningful is what the man has actually done over the course of his tenure on the appeals court.

Why is this difficult for you?

[---]

Now, if you say the man is a swamp monster and serial ingratiator based on the entirety of his academic and professional experience, that's a different story.

But based on a single press conference? Pfft. That is pure noise.

[McParadigm]

Now, if you say the man is a swamp monster and serial ingratiator based on the entirety of his academic and professional experience, that's a different story.

But based on a single press conference? Pfft. That is pure noise.

Nobody said “swamp“ or “serial“ anything. Argue against what is.

And actually, it was the context provided by some of his former writings that made the statement stand out to me. As someone who has already argued that the indictment and trial of a president would be unacceptable as a general rule, he’s already demonstrated that he is inclined against allowing any legal consequences to befall the holder of the office. To commit a sycophantic act immediately upon nomination...to lie for the president...is not inconsequential in that light, and certainly not in our current state.

It should go without saying that we are very interested in any insightful review of information about his other past work. You are more than welcome to provide some.

[---]

And actually, it was the context provided by some of his former writings that made the statement stand out to me. As someone who has already argued that the indictment and trial of a president would be unacceptable as a general rule, he’s already demonstrated that he is inclined against allowing any legal consequences to befall the holder of the office.

This is totally different and completely fair.

To commit a sycophantic act immediately upon nomination...to lie for the president...is not inconsequential in that light, and certainly not in our current state.

Noise. This just seems kind of silly to get worked up about.

It should go without saying that we are very interested in any insightful review of information about his other past work. You are more than welcome to provide some.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles ... rump-cover

[McParadigm]

And actually, it was the context provided by some of his former writings that made the statement stand out to me. As someone who has already argued that the indictment and trial of a president would be unacceptable as a general rule, he’s already demonstrated that he is inclined against allowing any legal consequences to befall the holder of the office.

This is totally different and completely fair.

To commit a sycophantic act immediately upon nomination...to lie for the president...is not inconsequential in that light, and certainly not in our current state.

Noise. This just seems kind of silly to get worked up about.

It should go without saying that we are very interested in any insightful review of information about his other past work. You are more than welcome to provide some.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles ... rump-cover

I’ve read the Bloomberg piece.

And the thing is, I don’t disagree at all with your argument that his precedential work is more important as a tool of insight. I just can’t agree that everything outside that frame is unimportant.

[tragabigzanda]

The only reason Kavanaugh got the nom is because of his views on investigations into a sitting POTUS. The press will run with the abortion debate headlines as long as people keep clicking. As McP stated, Kavanaugh's verbal fellating of Trump in light of this is quite terrifying; taken with yesterday's report of latino reporters being arrested under the guise of ICE violations, but in reality because of their reporting, these are pretty clear indications of a real attempt at instillation of an authoritarian regime...

One major difference between true authoritarianism and what we are dealing with is the concept of a free press. Which, given the general state of their industry and their willingness to let the tail wag the dog (vis-a-vis the "Kavanaugh will outlaw abortion" headlines), is basically useless.

I don't think the sky is falling; I think the spirit of individual Americans is stronger than they are intelligent. But when we win the battle against this hostile takeover of our democracy, it will have far more to do with images like this one going viral...



...than it will have to do with the quality of reporting by the liberal media. Because the media is on the frontlines of this war, and they are losing; and the quick soundbyte of Kavanaugh's praise for Trump is a highly effective weapon on this particular frontline.

[---]

And actually, it was the context provided by some of his former writings that made the statement stand out to me. As someone who has already argued that the indictment and trial of a president would be unacceptable as a general rule, he’s already demonstrated that he is inclined against allowing any legal consequences to befall the holder of the office.

This is totally different and completely fair.

To commit a sycophantic act immediately upon nomination...to lie for the president...is not inconsequential in that light, and certainly not in our current state.

Noise. This just seems kind of silly to get worked up about.

It should go without saying that we are very interested in any insightful review of information about his other past work. You are more than welcome to provide some.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles ... rump-cover

I’ve read the Bloomberg piece.

And the thing is, I don’t disagree at all with your argument that his precedential work is more important as a tool of insight. I just can’t agree that everything outside that frame is unimportant.

It's less that I think "everything outside that frame is unimportant" than it is that I think this particular event is unimportant.

A prospective nominee being milquetoast and gracious - perhaps even sycophantic - to the guy who is essentially hiring him, and who has yet to run what will doubtlessly be an absolutely unhinged, overtly political appointment gauntlet, is par for the course. There is only downside to anything but staid boilerplate, even if that requires being liberal with the truth. There is literally no upside for Kavanaugh to play his cards any way other than how he played them.

It means nothing, and any time spent scrutinizing it is time wasted.

Last edited by --- on Tue July 10, 2018 3:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[---]

The only reason Kavanaugh got the nom is because of his views on investigations into a sitting POTUS.

And you know this how?

[tragabigzanda]

The only reason Kavanaugh got the nom is because of his views on investigations into a sitting POTUS.

And you know this how?

Don't be a shithead, I don't "know" anything with any more or less certainty than you do. My belief is that Trump's intention is obvious because there is a wealth of conservative justices to draw from, but considerably fewer who hold this particular view on investigations into a POTUS.

[Strat]

And actually, it was the context provided by some of his former writings that made the statement stand out to me. As someone who has already argued that the indictment and trial of a president would be unacceptable as a general rule, he’s already demonstrated that he is inclined against allowing any legal consequences to befall the holder of the office.

This is totally different and completely fair.

To commit a sycophantic act immediately upon nomination...to lie for the president...is not inconsequential in that light, and certainly not in our current state.

Noise. This just seems kind of silly to get worked up about.

It should go without saying that we are very interested in any insightful review of information about his other past work. You are more than welcome to provide some.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles ... rump-cover

I’ve read the Bloomberg piece.

And the thing is, I don’t disagree at all with your argument that his precedential work is more important as a tool of insight. I just can’t agree that everything outside that frame is unimportant.

It's less that I think "everything outside that frame is unimportant" than it is that I think this particular event is unimportant.

A prospective nominee being milquetoast and gracious - perhaps even sycophantic - to the guy who is essentially hiring him, and who has yet to run what will doubtlessly be an absolutely unhinged, overtly political appointment gauntlet, is par for the course. There is only downside to anything but staid boilerplate, even if that requires being liberal with the truth. There is literally no upside for Kavanaugh to play his cards any way other than how he played them.

It means nothing, and any time spent scrutinizing it is time wasted.

yet, here we are.

[Strat]

The only reason Kavanaugh got the nom is because of his views on investigations into a sitting POTUS.

And you know this how?

Don't be a shithead, I don't "know" anything with any more or less certainty than you do. My belief is that Trump's intention is obvious because there is a wealth of conservative justices to draw from, but considerably fewer who hold this particular view on investigations into a POTUS.

Trump is so fucking obvious about all of his intentions.

[ABNorman]

yet, here we are.

- RM

[bune]

[---]

The only reason Kavanaugh got the nom is because of his views on investigations into a sitting POTUS.

And you know this how?

Don't be a shithead, I don't "know" anything with any more or less certainty than you do. My belief is that Trump's intention is obvious because there is a wealth of conservative justices to draw from, but considerably fewer who hold this particular view on investigations into a POTUS.

And yet one of us seems quite comfortable betraying certainty about something entirely unknowable, casting off every pretense of humility, for reasons I don't suppose I'll ever understand.

[Bi_3]

How unfairly reasonable.

[bune]

OK, sure.

[96583UP]

Hmmmm, let's see:

1. He is not a trans
2. He is not a woman
3. He is not gay
4. He is not black

SO HE'S OBVIOUSLY NOT QUALIFIED

Shut up, the adults are talking now.

sorry jammer, we all didn’t go to Gudger College

[96583UP]

OK, sure.

yeah it’s not one-dimensional eco-terrorist hate-spew so i am having difficulty processing