• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ruth Bader Ginsburg Criticizes Treatment Of Kavanaugh During SCOTUS Hearings..;

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
22,537
Reaction score
32,865
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
...“Highly Partisan Show.”

"Ginsburg called the hearings a “highly partisan show” and "wrong" while speaking at the George Washington University Law School on 9/12/18."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AriOjUfbBrw
Click to expand...


She is right, Republican's and Democrats march in lockstep. Back in her day she was voted in "96 - 3, Scalia 100 - 0"

Democrats in this case announcing openly even before the hearings actually start, and some in the hearing's themselves, that they are not going to vote for Kavanaugh no matter what.

Yet people on the Left argue that this is the way "democracy is supposed to work."
 



How are you able to post that after how Republicans announced in advance that no matter whom Obama nominated after Scalia died, they wouldn't even give the nominee hearings?

None of this is how democracy is supposed to work. Democrats are hypocrites with a lower case h. They're throwing spaghetti at the wall trying to stay relevant in a country where the president has a mancrush on Vladimir Putin. Republicans are capital-H Hypocrites.
 
Last edited:

Two words

Merrick Garland

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. This is an election year after all, the people should have the right to vote on who fills the seat. Wasn't that the theory?
 
Amelia said:
How are you able to post that after how Republicans announced in advance that no matter who Obama nominated after Scalia died, they wouldn't even give the nominee hearings?
Click to expand...

Shhh. You're not supposed to remember and mention such things.
 
I have to agree with RBG here. To those bringing up Merrick Garland: I absolutely agree that Republicans were in the wrong. They adhered to a “rule” I am 100% confident they never would have had the parties of the president and senate been reversed.

Yet I fail to see how that fact makes the Democrats’ actions here any better.
 
Amelia said:
How are you able to post that after how Republicans announced in advance that no matter whom Obama nominated after Scalia died, they wouldn't even give the nominee hearings?
Click to expand...

Oh hey, look!



A Strawman!
 

:shrug: that "Rule" was first promulgated - as far as I am aware - by Joe Biden and Ted Kennedy. Meaning, had the parties been reversed... that rule would have been put into play. :shrug:
 

The issue here isn't the democrats. They simply want a full and open disclosure of the writings and records of Kavanaugh, and the GOP simply won't allow that, trying to bum-rush him through w/out proper vetting.

There's nothing wrong w/demanding what the dems are demanding, and Kavanaugh is proving himself to be a genuinely untrustworthy candidate, quite apart from his long history of rather rabid GOP partisanship.
 

Republicans were just follwing the Biden rule

 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Two words

Merrick Garland

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
Click to expand...

Hm. I am only aware of the Senate Majority Leader exercising his ability to control scheduling to not schedule hearings for Merrick Garland, arguing instead that - just as it has happened before, and been argued by both sides - that a SCOTUS vacancy in a POTUS election should be left to the people to decide. I'm not aware of Republicans making the kinds of idiots of themselves that some (there were alternatives - Chris Coons, for example, tried to actually address questions about the law (how quaint) - but pointing specifically to the fools) Democrats made of themselves.


Also worth noting - Democrats acting like hyper-partisan, dancing idiots, isn't excused by the fact that they are upset that Trump got to nominate Scalia's replacement any more than Hillary's crimes with classified information excuses any of Trump's many, many, many abuses.



This is an election year after all, the people should have the right to vote on who fills the seat.
Click to expand...

I could have sworn the next Presidential Election Year was in 2020. Would you mind linking me to when it got moved to 2018?
 

She is clear, both Parties are to blame.
 
cpwill said:
:shrug: that "Rule" was first promulgated - as far as I am aware - by Joe Biden and Ted Kennedy. Meaning, had the parties been reversed... that rule would have been put into play. :shrug:
Click to expand...

No doubt about that at all. And Republicans would almost definitely have argued it was completely ridiculous.
 

Despite disagreeing with her living constitution approach to Constitutional construction I have huge amounts of respect for RGB. This country would be far better off if congress took her collegial approach to dealing with her colleagues, especially those she disagrees with.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Two words

Merrick Garland

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. This is an election year after all, the people should have the right to vote on who fills the seat. Wasn't that the theory?
Click to expand...


Elections have consequences.
 

His writings as a non-judge are completely irrelevant. The arguments a lawyer trying to advance his client's agenda make say pretty much zero about his opinions as a judge. There's a huge paper trial of Kavanaugh's legal opinons already available. That should be more than enough to determine whether he's qualified or not.
 

Of course they're relevant.

Doubly so if he perjured himself in connection with those writings while answering questions in hearings for his judgeship.
 
DEmocrats made a Huge mistake when they changed the rule requiring a certain majority to vote in an SC Justice.

I don't expect either party to change it.

I thought Republican took a huge gamble when they put the kibosh on Merrick Garland.
Turns out that gamble paid off.
 
RBG is what a SCOTUS nominee is supposed to be.

Not like Kavanaugh who refuses to answer questions by using the all-encompassing "hypothetical" duck.
 
Amelia said:
Of course they're relevant.

Doubly so if he perjured himself in connection with those writings while answering questions in hearings for his judgeship.
Click to expand...

Oh fer crying out loud, give it up already. He's getting in.
You don't want to sound as dimwitted and sleazy as Booker, Harris and Feinstein.

Seek the higher ground.
 

No, they're not, but I can see why someone would have to pretend otherwise. They would settle once and for all if he lied under oath during his confirmation hearings, for one thing, and the vast majority of his paper trail is being withheld.
 

Are you saying there is not an election coming up in a few months. An election in which senators, who ultimately approve members to the Supreme Court will be chosen (at least some of course)

Now as you say bad behaviour is not excused if one side did it first, but if it is not punished and it unfortunately was not punished tends to become the new normal


Anthony Kennedy was appointed to the SCOTUS in Feb 1988, an election year
 
Rogue Valley said:
RBG is what a SCOTUS nominee is supposed to be.

Not like Kavanaugh who refuses to answer questions by using the all-encompassing "hypothetical" duck.
Click to expand...

That’s what all SCOTUS nominees have done. Even Kagen, who I thought might finally change the practice after she wrote in a law review about how stupid it is that all nominees do it. But then she did too.
 
Amelia said:
Of course they're relevant.

Doubly so if he perjured himself in connection with those writings while answering questions in hearings for his judgeship.
Click to expand...


"Of course" really doesn't make them relevant. Can you offer a reason as to why they're relevant. I've already stated why they aren't and "of course they're relevant" doesn't refute that.

As to the perjury allegations they sound to me more like an attempt to get the documents declassifed than anything else. And again those documents have no bearing on his judging abilities.
 
akyron said:
Elections have consequences.
Click to expand...


The Democrats standing up to Kavanaugh were elected, too.

Yes, elections have consequences.

And so does the GOP's 8 years of obstructionism when Obama was president.

And so does the GOP's complete abandonment of principle now.

Part of the consequences are that everything is fair game. No unwritten rules of decorum and statesmanship apply now. In the belligerent environment of today's GOP as headlined by Trump, Democrats' constituents expect them to fight. We have a president who gives more credence to the words of murderous dictators than to American institutions. A president who beams like a starstruck teenybopper when he gets positive attention from those dictators. And we have Republicans who are openly and aggressively doing what they accused Democrats of doing during Obama's tenure.

Nothing is sacred. Ginsburg is in a position to say something which we should take to heart. But Trump supporters stand for everything she is speaking against. I'd say Trump supporters are breaking the irony meter, except that they pulverized it months ago. Everything is broken. There is nothing left to break.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…