|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On April 06 2022 01:39 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2022 01:15 NewSunshine wrote:
I don't have to prove anything, I'm not in a court of law, and you're not either. I'm stepping through what seems to me like simple logic, to illustrate why I'm much more inclined to take these accusations on good faith, than to assume she must be some kind of malicious political operative. I'm assuming she's a human being, and I'm operating under that assumption when I think on what her prospective risks and rewards are for saying something, and it doesn't balance out well for her. People have a hard enough time saying something when it isn't Trump's Supreme Court pick, and I'm just disappointed that the prevailing attitude here conveys very little understanding of what it's like to be a victim. They must be an actor. In the context here, I mean "you" in the sense of "people who in an official capacity represent the position you hold" - a group which, while technically not in legal proceedings because the alleged crime is too far in the past to be prosecuted, does have a standard of proof that is expected of them that is a few levels above personal theories and "why would she lie" rationalizations. You are certainly free, as someone who is not personally party to the confirmation process, to assume the best or worst about anyone you want who was party to that process. But perhaps there is some merit in considering the legal standard of proof of those claims, the very real incentives for either party to lie, and that there might be a good reason things went contrary to the way you assume they should have gone based on those factors. And for what it's worth, as quite a few of my last posts will show on the topic, I'm not particularly fond of Kavanaugh as a judge or as a nominee. I just dislike mob justice that much more.
Well, your problem is going to be that we'll never get a definitive legal resolution to whether her claims were credible or not. The FBI couldn't complete an investigation into the matter. So laymen's discussion is all you're going to get.
|
On April 06 2022 01:44 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2022 01:39 LegalLord wrote:On April 06 2022 01:15 NewSunshine wrote:
I don't have to prove anything, I'm not in a court of law, and you're not either. I'm stepping through what seems to me like simple logic, to illustrate why I'm much more inclined to take these accusations on good faith, than to assume she must be some kind of malicious political operative. I'm assuming she's a human being, and I'm operating under that assumption when I think on what her prospective risks and rewards are for saying something, and it doesn't balance out well for her. People have a hard enough time saying something when it isn't Trump's Supreme Court pick, and I'm just disappointed that the prevailing attitude here conveys very little understanding of what it's like to be a victim. They must be an actor. In the context here, I mean "you" in the sense of "people who in an official capacity represent the position you hold" - a group which, while technically not in legal proceedings because the alleged crime is too far in the past to be prosecuted, does have a standard of proof that is expected of them that is a few levels above personal theories and "why would she lie" rationalizations. You are certainly free, as someone who is not personally party to the confirmation process, to assume the best or worst about anyone you want who was party to that process. But perhaps there is some merit in considering the legal standard of proof of those claims, the very real incentives for either party to lie, and that there might be a good reason things went contrary to the way you assume they should have gone based on those factors. And for what it's worth, as quite a few of my last posts will show on the topic, I'm not particularly fond of Kavanaugh as a judge or as a nominee. I just dislike mob justice that much more. Well, your problem is going to be that we'll never get a definitive legal resolution to whether her claims were credible or not. The FBI couldn't complete an investigation into the matter. So laymen's discussion is all you're going to get.
Legally, statute of limitations applies so it's moot. Occupationally, he passed the nomination and is a SCJ nominee for as long as he doesn't die, retire, or get impeached. The "inconclusive FBI investigation" is not a loose end of any importance. So the matter is settled for all practical intents and purposes.
Legal resolution is done. Any of this discussion is just the afterparty.
|
Don't be a dick. The point of this discussion was not to rehash whether Brett can keep his seat. The point was to draw comparisons to KBJ's confirmation hearings, or point out why certain comparisons are hypocritical. And why I think it's reasonable to point out that there's a world of difference between the candidates, and so the hearings themselves should in fact not be expected to go the same way, and that it's a problem if they do.
|
On April 06 2022 01:56 NewSunshine wrote:
Don't be a dick. The point of this discussion was not to rehash whether Brett can keep his seat. The point was to draw comparisons to KBJ's confirmation hearings, or point out why certain comparisons are hypocritical. And why I think it's reasonable to point out that there's a world of difference between the candidates, and so the hearings themselves should in fact not be expected to go the same way.
Hey, you brought up the point of "legally it isn't settled." I merely responded accordingly.
KBJ is absolutely getting much softer treatment than Kavanaugh got. Maybe worse than deserved, but as I said before the Republican opposition seems more token than an actual effort to change the course of the nomination process. Unwarranted, perhaps, but compared to the last few nominations, especially Kavanaugh's? Not at all unprecedented.
|
I never said that legally it isn't settled, I implied the opposite in fact. I said that, in legal terms, there is no definitive statement that Ford's accusations are credible or not, because they gathered no evidence in either direction. That's different. "Laymen's discussion is all you're going to get", because we as laymen will never get to know enough to think in terms of more rigorous legal standards. There's an inconclusive investigation, and there's the settlement of Brett's confirmation, and that's it.
|
On April 06 2022 00:59 Zambrah wrote:
I think a more fair comparison would be the justice who wasnt extremely controversial, Neil Gorsuch.
His nomination was also a party-line vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee with every Democrat voted against and then the Dems filibustered his nomination in the Senate with Republicans using the nuclear option to get him through
|
|
|
Honestly, probably should've just done January so that there was some modicum of feasibility that it might be actually the last time. Why make it an issue for midterms when you can absolutely choose the time that the issue will become active again?
|
It's looking increasingly likely that they want to use it as a shot on goal just in time for the midterms. However, the fact that they're playing political football with student debt might make it an own goal. They have not been managing expectations well at all with regard to student debt, and they could be shooting themselves in the foot yet again. It was only one of Biden's major campaign promises, after all.
|
On April 06 2022 03:02 NewSunshine wrote:It's looking increasingly likely that they want to use it as a shot on goal just in time for the midterms. However, the fact that they're playing political football with student debt might make it an own goal. They have not been managing expectations well at all with regard to student debt, and they could be shooting themselves in the foot yet again. It was only one of Biden's major campaign promises, after all.
They seem to be pushing it until midterms for impact for whatever they have in mind to help inspire turnout.
It is funny because it will all depend on what they do. If the loans are still paused during midterms, I will vote for democrats. If Biden forgives $10k and pats himself on the back, I will absolutely not vote for democrats no matter what. I will write in Bernie Sanders for every option. Not a single democrat will get my vote.
If they do something, they’ll need to do something that I view as a moral solution to the problem, which is at minimum forgiving all accrued interest and setting interest to 0. Anything else is too immoral for me to endorse with a vote. My vote is purely symbolic since I live in deep blue area, so I will absolutely use it to give the party the finger if they don’t deliver in a moral way.
If I don’t think the solution they use is moral, of course they don’t get my vote. The cost of pausing loans is 87B per year. When I peek at the US budget and consider what an impact 87 has on the total, saying “sorry bud, pay up” is absurd. The entire idea of the government profiting off of education, which has enormously positive externalities for the government and society as a whole, is whack. Won’t support it with my (symbolic) vote.
|
United States43964 Posts
On April 06 2022 01:39 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2022 01:15 NewSunshine wrote:
I don't have to prove anything, I'm not in a court of law, and you're not either. I'm stepping through what seems to me like simple logic, to illustrate why I'm much more inclined to take these accusations on good faith, than to assume she must be some kind of malicious political operative. I'm assuming she's a human being, and I'm operating under that assumption when I think on what her prospective risks and rewards are for saying something, and it doesn't balance out well for her. People have a hard enough time saying something when it isn't Trump's Supreme Court pick, and I'm just disappointed that the prevailing attitude here conveys very little understanding of what it's like to be a victim. They must be an actor. In the context here, I mean "you" in the sense of "people who in an official capacity represent the position you hold" - a group which, while technically not in legal proceedings because the alleged crime is too far in the past to be prosecuted, does have a standard of proof that is expected of them that is a few levels above personal theories and "why would she lie" rationalizations. You are certainly free, as someone who is not personally party to the confirmation process, to assume the best or worst about anyone you want who was party to that process. But perhaps there is some merit in considering the legal standard of proof of those claims, the very real incentives for either party to lie, and that there might be a good reason things went contrary to the way you assume they should have gone based on those factors. And for what it's worth, as quite a few of my last posts will show on the topic, I'm not particularly fond of Kavanaugh as a judge or as a nominee. I just dislike mob justice that much more.
In what sense is a job interview part of the justice system. If a mob publicize a rumour from my past and I don’t get a job because of it I don’t think that counts as mob justice. People invoke legal standards of guilt and allude to mob justice and lynching as if the stakes here were a criminal conviction for Kavanaugh rather than just a job interview.
|
On April 06 2022 00:59 Zambrah wrote:
I think a more fair comparison would be the justice who wasnt extremely controversial, Neil Gorsuch.
The 2015-2016 Senate violated the Constitution to keep the seat open for Gorsuch, which was pretty controversial.
|
Gorsuch is an entirely illegitimate justice, so that part makes sense. I'd say beer guy is significantly more legitimate than gorsuch.
|
On April 06 2022 09:38 Severedevil wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2022 00:59 Zambrah wrote:
I think a more fair comparison would be the justice who wasnt extremely controversial, Neil Gorsuch. The 2015-2016 Senate violated the Constitution to keep the seat open for Gorsuch, which was pretty controversial.
It's not really the constitution itself that was violated, if anything it was only norms that were violated. By the text of the constitution the president is not entitled to get a justice in case of a vacancy; it's a 50/50 endeavor with the Senate. If the senate withholds its consent, the president gets no justice.
The president "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, [and] Judges of the Supreme Court."
|
The president had the Constitutional obligation to nominate a candidate, and did. The Senate had the constitution obligation to advise, and to either grant or withhold consent. It did not.
|
United States43964 Posts
On April 06 2022 10:18 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2022 09:38 Severedevil wrote:On April 06 2022 00:59 Zambrah wrote:
I think a more fair comparison would be the justice who wasnt extremely controversial, Neil Gorsuch. The 2015-2016 Senate violated the Constitution to keep the seat open for Gorsuch, which was pretty controversial. It's not really the constitution itself that was violated, if anything it was only norms that were violated. By the text of the constitution the president is not entitled to get a justice in case of a vacancy; it's a 50/50 endeavor with the Senate. If the senate withholds its consent, the president gets no justice. The president "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, [and] Judges of the Supreme Court."
They didn’t refuse to consent, they refused to accept the nomination entirely. They didn’t hold the hearings and vote on it.
The norm was the norm because it’s what the constitution says.
|
Yeah Mitch could have done a vote and gotten his 55 or so R votes, instead of doing it the way he did. Not sure that's very consequential though.
|
I can post the article for the like the 5th time but it shouldn't be necessary. It would have been more unusual for the senate to approve of a nomination in a presidential election year when the WH and the Senate are controlled by opposite parties. The length of the vacancy was fairly long, but the practice itself has been standard for some time now. So the argument about "norms" is more complicated, at best.
And obviously it wasn't unconstitutional... there is no time frame given, refusal to even vote is the same as withholding consent, and the number of justices is fixed by federal law not the constitution. And there have been some very long vacancies. It was in no sense unconstitutional. By that logic it would unconstitutional for a president to withdraw a nomination before the senate votes on a doomed nominee, which is self-evidently absurd.
but this is all self-serving. Had the senate voted on Garland and voted him down, and the seat remained open until Trump took office, idiots and/or hacks would still be claiming Gorsuch was illegitimate.
|
Norway28791 Posts
On April 06 2022 13:13 Introvert wrote:
I can post the article for the like the 5th time but it shouldn't be necessary. It would have been more unusual for the senate to approve of a nomination in a presidential election year when the WH and the Senate are controlled by opposite parties. The length of the vacancy was fairly long, but the practice itself has been standard for some time now. So the argument about "norms" is more complicated, at best.
And obviously it wasn't unconstitutional... there is no time frame given, refusal to even vote is the same as withholding consent, and the number of justices is fixed by federal law not the constitution. And there have been some very long vacancies. It was in no sense unconstitutional. By that logic it would unconstitutional for a president to withdraw a nomination before the senate votes on a doomed nominee, which is self-evidently absurd.
but this is all self-serving. Had the senate voted on Garland and voted him down, and the seat remained open until Trump took office, idiots and/or hacks would still be claiming Gorsuch was illegitimate.
What do you think about the ACB confirmation?
|
On April 06 2022 09:38 Severedevil wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2022 00:59 Zambrah wrote:
I think a more fair comparison would be the justice who wasnt extremely controversial, Neil Gorsuch. The 2015-2016 Senate violated the Constitution to keep the seat open for Gorsuch, which was pretty controversial.
Everything in American politics is controversial aside from pumping up the military budget.
If I recall correctly Gorsuch wasn’t a controversial person himself, he didn’t get set upon like KJB or Kavanaugh because he was a boring normal conservative justice.
My point is that Kavanaugh is a bad comparison point because he looked pretty unfit to serve on the highest court, whereas KJB and Gorsuch don’t show any such obvious character flaws.
People going But Kavanaugh is silly, hes a shitty spoiled turd with poor self control, better to compare KJB to Gorsuch in that they’re both perfectly fine candidates who are controversial because American politics is controversial in all ways at all times regardless of whether it’s warranted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
