Honestly I’m still blown away that the sexual assault allegation is even the main issue. He acted completely nuts in that hearing and that should disqualify him. I don’t need to see the results of a BS investigation to determine he doesn’t belong on the court. He did that himself last week.
But I guess I have standards and a functioning brain which isn’t a thing for Republicans.
I agree. Not enough attention has been paid to this.
While we all know how the votes will turn out, amongst lawyers who do Supreme Court work, they need to have some sense that most justices can be moved on most issues. I have made no secret of my disdain for the current composition of the Supreme Court, as do the liberal interest groups that align with my politics and my work. But in actual practice, when you sit down to work on a cert petition or discuss an amicus strategy or write your actual petition or opposition, you focus on how you can flip the justices that aren't inclined to go your way because you have no other choice. You find some philosophy that weaves through their opinions and figure out how to apply it to your case. And you'd be surprised at how it's usually possible to come up with some argument to try to persuade a justice who isn't on your side to come to your side. You know it's a long shot that they will actually change their minds, but you do it because you have no other choice. You have to advocate for your client and cause.
To people who do federal appellate work and Supreme Court litigation, it is utterly devastating it is to be faced with a justice that isn't moveable on anything at all because his judicial ideology is revenge on liberals. It's one person out of nine, so we can still fight like hell to persuade the others. But it's a significant turning point for the worse for our judicial system, and one that should terrify people.
What are the chances of states being able to retain power over setting their own regulations? I’m thinking specifically of the coming fight over California’s environmental regulations and net neutrality law. This is one of the decisions I fear the most (other than Roe in the future and the double jeopardy one this term).
I'm far from a lawyer but I think the fed's likely to win on both counts due to interstate commerce laws - Arizona/other more conservative states in the region could argue that CA's regulations pose undue burden on regional trading partners (esp in re: environmental regs) and our soon-to-be extremely conservative supreme court is likely to side in their favor.
I hope I have that completely wrong.
Yup, you would be right on this. "States' rights" is effectively a liberal ideology before SCOTUS these days.
I'm far from a lawyer but I think the fed's likely to win on both counts due to interstate commerce laws - Arizona/other more conservative states in the region could argue that CA's regulations pose undue burden on regional trading partners (esp in re: environmental regs) and our soon-to-be extremely conservative supreme court is likely to side in their favor.
I hope I have that completely wrong.
Yup, you would be right on this. "States' rights" is effectively a liberal ideology before SCOTUS these days.
Honestly I’m still blown away that the sexual assault allegation is even the main issue. He acted completely nuts in that hearing and that should disqualify him. I don’t need to see the results of a BS investigation to determine he doesn’t belong on the court. He did that himself last week.
But I guess I have standards and a functioning brain which isn’t a thing for Republicans.
I agree. Not enough attention has been paid to this.
While we all know how the votes will turn out, amongst lawyers who do Supreme Court work, they need to have some sense that most justices can be moved on most issues. I have made no secret of my disdain for the current composition of the Supreme Court, as do the liberal interest groups that align with my politics and my work. But in actual practice, when you sit down to work on a cert petition or discuss an amicus strategy or write your actual petition or opposition, you focus on how you can flip the justices that aren't inclined to go your way because you have no other choice. You find some philosophy that weaves through their opinions and figure out how to apply it to your case. And you'd be surprised at how it's usually possible to come up with some argument to try to persuade a justice who isn't on your side to come to your side. You know it's a long shot that they will actually change their minds, but you do it because you have no other choice. You have to advocate for your client and cause.
To people who do federal appellate work and Supreme Court litigation, it is utterly devastating it is to be faced with a justice that isn't moveable on anything at all because his judicial ideology is revenge on liberals. It's one person out of nine, so we can still fight like hell to persuade the others. But it's a significant turning point for the worse for our judicial system, and one that should terrify people.
I agree.. I was thinking about some of the things coming up and wondering about that. But mostly I was thinking about how even Gorsuch and Roberts seem persuadable on various issues to me. I don't always agree with them, but it's not like they are idiots. I find Alito and Thomas the most irritating currently, but will probably find Kavanaugh worse.
I do think no matter who replaced Kennedy it was going to be interesting to see what happened. IDK, I guess my optimistic side says you could see a shift from Roberts maybe with that swing vote void opened.
I'm far from a lawyer but I think the fed's likely to win on both counts due to interstate commerce laws - Arizona/other more conservative states in the region could argue that CA's regulations pose undue burden on regional trading partners (esp in re: environmental regs) and our soon-to-be extremely conservative supreme court is likely to side in their favor.
I hope I have that completely wrong.
Yup, you would be right on this. "States' rights" is effectively a liberal ideology before SCOTUS these days.
What about things that wouldn’t affect neighboring states - thinking mainly of CA’s emissions regulations and a state clean power plan.
This is where I sit. The assault allegations are bad. I believe Ford. But his opening speech was more than enough to disqualify him all on its own. It was outrageous coming from a man who will sit on the highest court in the land and make decisions that impact everyone in this country. I am appalled that that display of partisan attitude and his inability to control his emotions is not enough to convince these people that he cannot and should not do this job.
No, see, he was just standing up for himself because he’s oppressed:
Barf
Our congress is a liberal-dominated institution? Huh.
"Hello babies. Welcome to Earth. It's hot in the summer and cold in the winter. It's round and wet and crowded. On the outside, babies, you've got a hundred years here. There's only one rule that I know of, babies-"God damn it, you've got to be kind.”
"Hello babies. Welcome to Earth. It's hot in the summer and cold in the winter. It's round and wet and crowded. On the outside, babies, you've got a hundred years here. There's only one rule that I know of, babies-"God damn it, you've got to be kind.”
Yup, you would be right on this. "States' rights" is effectively a liberal ideology before SCOTUS these days.
Which is insane! Down is up, right is left!
It’s because corporations want lower federal standards and are worried about states running amok, passing tougher laws and giving people the ability to sue them. They claim it’s because they need uniform rules, which is dumb because many operate internationally. Really it is because they want to be able to do business in CA but don’t want to play by CA’s tougher rules.
This is where I sit. The assault allegations are bad. I believe Ford. But his opening speech was more than enough to disqualify him all on its own. It was outrageous coming from a man who will sit on the highest court in the land and make decisions that impact everyone in this country. I am appalled that that display of partisan attitude and his inability to control his emotions is not enough to convince these people that he cannot and should not do this job.
No, see, he was just standing up for himself because he’s oppressed:
Barf
Yup. This really struck me most when I read that the Kavanaugh hearing had somehow unbelievably HELPED the GOP in polling data for the midterms when I thought it was such a shit show. Remember that quote that was brought up here a few times: “When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression”? This is their side fighting back. I am starting to think there is a fundamental divide between the two groups that can’t be breached. If you’re really to shrug aside sexual assault because it will help “your side,” I don’t want to know you.
Yup. This really struck me most when I read that the Kavanaugh hearing had somehow unbelievably HELPED the GOP in polling data for the midterms when I thought it was such a shit show. Remember that quote that was brought up here a few times: “When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression”? This is their side fighting back. I am starting to think there is a fundamental divide between the two groups that can’t be breached. If you’re really to shrug aside sexual assault because it will help “your side,” I don’t want to know you.
This is something that I canNOT seem to get people to understand. I'm fucking done trying to find a bridge or engage or listen. How do we get to a place where these voices are NOT the loudest in the room when everything exists to keep them there?
Nope! Many of the people who say Kavanaugh shouldn’t have gotten angry are people who have had their voice completely ignored because they were “ too shrill” They are the people who have been told they are “ too emotional” to do a job they are qualified for. They are the people who know they will be judged on how much they smile, while their counterparts can yell, red-faced whatever they want. They are the people who keep silent because they don’t want to make a scene when someone just touched them inappropriately, on national television, even though they are incredibly famous.
But a man, at a job interview, alternately crying yelling and acting disrespectful to his interviewers was righteous.
Yup, you would be right on this. "States' rights" is effectively a liberal ideology before SCOTUS these days.
What about things that wouldn’t affect neighboring states - thinking mainly of CA’s emissions regulations and a state clean power plan.
It could be argued that the clean power plan affects neighboring states, especially AZ, because of where some of the wind power farms are in the desert. I am nervous right now that the Fed just wants to stick it to us crazy liberal Californians and will make these kinds of arguments. What could work in our (CA) favor is if other neighboring states (like Oregon and Washington) band together with CA on some of this and then it's not CA v. the Fed. It would be bigger than that.
Sen. Cornyn, defending Kavanaugh: "We remember that Atticus Finch was a lawyer who did not believe that a mere accusation was synonymous with guilt. He represented an unpopular person who many people presumed was guilty of a heinous crime because of his race, and his race alone."
Sen. Cornyn, defending Kavanaugh: "We remember that Atticus Finch was a lawyer who did not believe that a mere accusation was synonymous with guilt. He represented an unpopular person who many people presumed was guilty of a heinous crime because of his race, and his race alone."
I think this is the crux of it. This wasn’t a trial, it was looking for “beyond reasonable doubt” and I don’t know how they could ever find it- given the nature, and timing of the crime. With that said, laws for abuse need to be changed. Trauma needs to be accounted for, amongst other things. I do’t think we should get to a point where the accused is presumed guilty, but the burden of proof needs to be redefined for the victim.
To be clear though, I believe absolutley EVERYTHING Dr. Ford said. I also believe that Kavanaugh has never admitted what he did was wrong, on a conscious level. I am not excusing him, I think he’s an ass of the worst hole, I just don’t know how we could ever get the truth out him.
Live: Watch Sens. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and other GOP senators hold a press conference regarding Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh
Sen. Cornyn, defending Kavanaugh: "We remember that Atticus Finch was a lawyer who did not believe that a mere accusation was synonymous with guilt. He represented an unpopular person who many people presumed was guilty of a heinous crime because of his race, and his race alone."
The Weeds had Ezra Klein and Matt Iglesias on this week and their theory was basically that while the court HAS been conservative for 30+ years, it hasn't been conservative ENOUGH to many, because, well, we still have Roe v. Wade and same-sex marriage, right? Basically, the Republican party/conservative base/GOP members of Congress are moving to the right far faster than the courts. Which is really by design, since courts are supposed to be non-partisan and the lifetime appointments make them relatively immune to big political shifts or the whims of the electorate. Until now?