President Donald J. Trump's Supreme Court Associate Justice Kavanaugh

[Taro T]

2 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

Paul and Cruz would be completely ostracized from the party if they pulled a stunt like this, and well they should be. This is a chance to pack the court, a generational opportunity.

 

 

Well, we'll find out who's who then...won't we?

 

I bet that milquetoast Collins proves to be a real pain in the ass.

 

 

Not taking that bet.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

2 minutes ago, Taro T said:

 

Not taking that bet.

 

Why not?

 

She's pretty much a Democrat, you know.

 

[keepthefaith]

5 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

Why not?

 

She's pretty much a Democrat, you know.

 

 

I can't believe she wasn't smoked in her last primary.  Don't know if she was even challenged. 

Edited July 10, 2018 by keepthefaith

[TakeYouToTasker]

1 minute ago, joesixpack said:

 

Paul and Cruz would be completely ostracized from the party if they pulled a stunt like this, and well they should be. This is a chance to pack the court, a generational opportunity.

 

 

Well, we'll find out who's who then...won't we?

 

I bet that milquetoast Collins proves to be a real pain in the ass.

 

 

If Paul and Cruz don't feel the pick represents their governing philosophies, and they reject him, and the Administration is unable to sway any centrist Democrats, Trump will simply nominate another jurist, hopefully consulting with Paul and Cruz (amongst others) on a list of whom they might approve.

 

It is not the job of Republicans in the Senate to rubber stamp the President's choices.  Especially in an environment when the President's choices are not being honestly vetted by Democrats.  It is the job of Republicans in the Senate to act as statesmen, and to advise and consent as they deem best.

 

It speaks to the downfall and failure of our institutions when a person demands the Senate abrogate it's responsibilities in favor of simply becoming a tool of the Executive.

 

 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Just now, TakeYouToTasker said:

It speaks to the downfall and failure of our institutions when a person demands the Senate abrogate it's responsibilities in favor of simply becoming a tool of the Executive.

 

 

Not incorrect.

 

But also, completely detached from reality. The fact of the matter is, no matter who trump puts forth, he won't get a single democratic vote, and likely will have republican defections. What that means is that no appointment will likely be made without straight-party voting. If Cruz and Paul decide to have a tantrum over a candidate, they're exercising outsized power for their positions.

 

To restate: you're not incorrect. In an IDEAL world, the senate would have a logical and rational debate and process. The fact of the current situation, however, is that such a process is IMPOSSIBLE.

 

[row_33]

Paul and Cruz are total greasy sleaze-bags, always have been.  When given a chance to finally act like they have mouthed off, they do the most dishonourable thing.

 

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

3 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

Not incorrect.

 

But also, completely detached from reality. The fact of the matter is, no matter who trump puts forth, he won't get a single democratic vote, and likely will have republican defections. What that means is that no appointment will likely be made without straight-party voting. If Cruz and Paul decide to have a tantrum over a candidate, they're exercising outsized power for their positions.

 

To restate: you're not incorrect. In an IDEAL world, the senate would have a logical and rational debate and process. The fact of the current situation, however, is that such a process is IMPOSSIBLE.

 

 

It is not impossible.

 

Further, you need to realize that your advocating for the breaking down of our institutions.  Government should never act as a monolith.  It's dangerous.

 

Again, if Cruz and Paul reject the pick, the President will simply go back to the drawing board and nominate another jurist. Simple as that.

 

And no, Paul and Cruz would not be exercising outsized power.  They would be doing their Constitutional duty as a check on the Executive.

 

It's how our government is supposed to work.

 

It's a feature, not a flaw.

 

 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

2 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

And no, Paul and Cruz would not be exercising outsized power.  They would be doing their Constitutional duty as a check on the Executive.

 

You're always consistent in your idealism.

 

You understand of course that Cruz and Paul want someone who will NEVER get past the process, right?

 

So, Trump could nominate a half-dozen conservative choices, and if they're not what Cruz and Paul want then the opportunity is likely wasted.

REMEMBER: keeping control of the senate is no sure thing. In a few short months, it could be LITERALLY impossible to get a SC pick past the senate.

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

1 minute ago, joesixpack said:

 

You're always consistent in your idealism.

 

You understand of course that Cruz and Paul want someone who will NEVER get past the process, right?

 

So, Trump could nominate a half-dozen conservative choices, and if they're not what Cruz and Paul want then the opportunity is likely wasted.

REMEMBER: keeping control of the senate is no sure thing. In a few short months, it could be LITERALLY impossible to get a SC pick past the senate.

 

 

It's not idealism, Joe.  It's literally how the process was designed to work.

 

And I'm consistent in advocating for process.  Process is much more important to long term stability and success than individual outcomes.

 

Did, or did not, Cruz and Paul vote to confirm Neil Gorsuch?

Edited July 10, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

9 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

Did, or did not, Cruz and Paul vote to confirm Neil Gorsuch?

 

They did.

 

Was there a definite time limit on that vote, or did they pretty much have two years to get that done?

 

Again, my concern is getting this done before November, whereas you couldn't care less about throwing the dice, and giving a reckless Democratic party a chance to stonewall ALL progress.

 

It's a matter of opinion.

 

 

Edited July 10, 2018 by joesixpack

[TakeYouToTasker]

11 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

They did.

 

Was there a definite time limit on that vote, or did they pretty much have two years to get that done?

 

Again, my concern is getting this done before November.

 

 

Neil Gorsuch was confirmed in just over two months:  nominated January 31, 2017, confirmed April 7, 2017.

 

Again, if Paul and Cruz reject the nomination, they are doing their jobs vetting the nominee, and advising and consenting through the Constitutional process.  Literally their jobs.

 

If the President wants his nominee confirmed, he needs to work with the Senate to do so, which includes nominating someone palatable to them, rather than rubber stamping whatever the Executive wants.

 

He's done it before, and he can do it again.

 

The President, in his position, should be acutely aware of the approaching timelines, and the importance of getting a justice confirmed.  As such, it's his job to nominate someone who the Senate will confirm; not the other way around.

Edited July 10, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

5 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

Neil Gorsuch was confirmed in just over two months:  nominated January 31, 2017, confirmed April 7, 2017.

 

Again, if Paul and Cruz reject the nomination, they are doing their jobs vetting the nominee, and advising and consenting through the Constitutional process.  Literally their jobs.

 

If the President wants his nominee confirmed, he needs to work with the Senate to do so, which includes nominating someone palatable to them, rather than rubber stamping whatever the Executive wants.

 

He's done it before, and he can do it again.

 

Let's hope. Two months from now (which would be the same timetable as Gorusch) puts us at Sept. 10.

 

If Cruz and Paul get their way, and reject this nominee, we all had better hope the second one is palatable enough to squeeze it in before the election. If not, it's a generational opportunity likely lost, and the Republican party has no one but themselves to blame for whatever fallout those two cause.

 

But again, I have little faith that anyone to the left of say Mitch McConnell would approve of a choice Cruz and Paul would like.

What specific objections do those two have anyway?

 

 

Edited July 10, 2018 by joesixpack

[TakeYouToTasker]

6 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

Let's hope. Two months from now (which would be the same timetable as Gorusch) puts us at Sept. 10.

 

If Cruz and Paul get their way, and reject this nominee, we all had better hope the second one is palatable to squeeze it in before the election. If not, it's a generational opportunity likely lost, and the Republican party has no one but themselves to blame for whatever fallout those two cause.

 

 

Again, it's not the job of the Senate to rubber stamp whatever the President wants.

 

The reasoning that says otherwise is a central part of the Obama legacy, and you're protecting it.

 

Constitutional government, and the process, is more important than individual outcome.

 

It is the President's responsibility to nominate someone whom the Senate will confirm; and if we're being intellectually honest, no President in history has ever had an easier path to having their nominees confirmed now that the nuclear option is in play.  He doesn't need to get to 60 votes.  He doesn't need a single Democrat.

 

If he, in this environment, can't bring himself to nominate someone who can pass the rigors of a purely conservative vetting process, the failure is his, not the Senates.

Edited July 10, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker

[Bray Wyatt]

2 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

Again, it's not the job of the Senate to rubber stamp whatever the President wants.

 

The reasoning that says otherwise is a central part of the Obama legacy, and you're protecting it.

 

Constitution government, and the process, is more important than individual outcome.

 

It is the President's responsibility to nominate someone whom the Senate will confirm; and if we're being intellectually honest, no President in history has ever had an easier path to having their nominees confirmed now that the nuclear option is in play.  He doesn't need to get to 60 votes.  He doesn't need a single Democrat.

 

If he, in this environment, can't bring himself to nominate someone who can pass the rigors of a purely conservative vetting process, the failure is his, not the Senates.

 

If I am not mistaken, it was a simple majority for a long time before they switched to the 60 votes.

Also, I do agree in part that if Paul and Cruz are rejecting Kavanaugh on his qualifications and merits then yes they are doing their job. If they are doing it for reasons like a power play then they would be doing their country a disservice

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

6 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

Constitutional government, and the process, is more important than individual outcome.

Well thank goodness we have real heroes like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul to save us all from ourselves.

 

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

Just now, joesixpack said:

Well thank goodness we have real heroes like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul to save us all from ourselves.

 

 

That's sort of the exact point of a representative democratic republic, Joe.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

1 minute ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

That's sort of the exact point of a representative democratic republic, Joe.

 

Because they'd never have impure motives right?

 

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

3 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

Because they'd never have impure motives right?

 

 

Depends.

 

Do you believe a demand for an Origionalist jurist is impure?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

4 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

Depends.

 

Do you believe a demand for an Origionalist jurist is impure?

 

If it means putting control of the process into the Democratic party's hands come November, yes. At that point, it would be grandstanding and promotion of their own self-interest. Don't forget, Collins is on record saying she won't vote for anyone who'd overturn Roe. So if the woman judge (can't remember her name) was the candidate that  Cruz and Paul wanted, she wouldn't pass the senate anyway...due to McCain being incapacitated.

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[keepthefaith]

4 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

If it means putting control of the process into the Democratic party's hands come November, yes. At that point, it would be grandstanding and promotion of their own self-interest. Don't forget, Collins is on record saying she won't vote for anyone who'd overturn Roe. So if the woman judge (can't remember her name) was the candidate that  Cruz and Paul wanted, she wouldn't pass the senate anyway...due to McCain being incapacitated.

 

 

 

McCain made positive remarks about the pick last night.  Maybe he'll be well enough and motivated enough to try and get to Washington and vote. 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Just now, keepthefaith said:

 

McCain made positive remarks about the pick last night.  Maybe he'll be well enough and motivated enough to try and get to Washington and vote. 

 

If he could get two democrats to flip on the pick and make cruz and paul irrelevant, it'd be lovely. Let them have their soapbox moment, and move on.

 

[Bray Wyatt]

1 minute ago, joesixpack said:

 

If he could get two democrats to flip on the pick and make cruz and paul irrelevant, it'd be lovely. Let them have their soapbox moment, and move on.

 

 

Ultimately I think they are just posturing, and are using this to try and get something that they want passed later down the line. Not sure what that may be but just what I think.

[DC Tom]

1 minute ago, joesixpack said:

 

If he could get two democrats to flip on the pick and make cruz and paul irrelevant, it'd be lovely. Let them have their soapbox moment, and move on.

 

 

No Democrat is flipping to support Trump in anything.  

 

Democrats right now are 100% doctrinaire, incapable of thinking for themselves.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

1 minute ago, DC Tom said:

 

No Democrat is flipping to support Trump in anything.  

 

Democrats right now are 100% doctrinaire, incapable of thinking for themselves.

 

And therein lies the problem.

 

Or, if you're tasker, the feature.

 

[DC Tom]

2 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

And therein lies the problem.

 

Or, if you're tasker, the feature.

 

 

It's the feature.

 

The problem is that you want to abandon that feature in the interest of "getting things done."  That makes you...a Democrat, arbitrarily changing cloture rules to get your way, or legislating from the Oval Office with a pen and a phone...

[LeviF]

33 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

 

It is the President's responsibility to nominate someone whom the Senate will confirm; and if we're being intellectually honest, no President in history has ever had an easier path to having their nominees confirmed now that the nuclear option is in play. 

 

In theory, this is true.  In practice, this is obviously not the case.  As the USSC has become more political, the confirmation process has as well.  Candidates rated well by the ABA often sailed through Senate confirmation.  Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, and Ginsburg all received 90+ votes at confirmation.  As recently as the early 1900's many justices were confirmed by voice vote.  This will likely never be the case again.

[TakeYouToTasker]

16 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

If it means putting control of the process into the Democratic party's hands come November, yes. At that point, it would be grandstanding and promotion of their own self-interest. Don't forget, Collins is on record saying she won't vote for anyone who'd overturn Roe. So if the woman judge (can't remember her name) was the candidate that  Cruz and Paul wanted, she wouldn't pass the senate anyway...due to McCain being incapacitated.

 

 

 

Stop protecting President Obama's legacy.

 

The Senate is not supposed to be a rubber stamp for the Executive.

 

It is incumbent on the President to nominate someone whom the Senate will confirm.  If the President cannot nominate someone who can win the votes of 50 Republican Senators, then he does not deserve to have his Court.

 

This is a legitimate Constitutional check on the power of the Executive.

 

 

 

 

[TH3]

3 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

It's the feature.

 

The problem is that you want to abandon that feature in the interest of "getting things done."  That makes you...a Democrat, arbitrarily changing cloture rules to get your way, or legislating from the Oval Office with a pen and a phone...

WTF are you talking about....do you hear yourself?

Arbitrarily changing rules?...executive orders? Not thinking for yourself?

GOP acts the exact same way....

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

5 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

It's the feature.

 

The problem is that you want to abandon that feature in the interest of "getting things done."  That makes you...a Democrat, arbitrarily changing cloture rules to get your way, or legislating from the Oval Office with a pen and a phone...

 

I would have been perfectly happy to have kept the cloture rules in place. But the fact is, they're no longer applicable, thanks to the Democrats.

 

Again, I'm not saying that the senate shouldn't have a vote on it. They absolutely should, it's their JOB. Problem is, they haven't actually done their job in recent memory, at least not effectively.

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

2 minutes ago, LeviF91 said:

 

In theory, this is true.  In practice, this is obviously not the case.  As the USSC has become more political, the confirmation process has as well.  Candidates rated well by the ABA often sailed through Senate confirmation.  Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, and Ginsburg all received 90+ votes at confirmation.  As recently as the early 1900's many justices were confirmed by voice vote.  This will likely never be the case again.

 

Fair point.  I should have said modern political history.

 

This includes those justices you mentioned.  While they were confirmed by a wide bi-partisan margin, their confirmations required bi-partisanship.  President Trump's nominees do not.

[whatdrought]

1 hour ago, joesixpack said:

 

You're always consistent in your idealism.

 

You understand of course that Cruz and Paul want someone who will NEVER get past the process, right?

 

So, Trump could nominate a half-dozen conservative choices, and if they're not what Cruz and Paul want then the opportunity is likely wasted.

REMEMBER: keeping control of the senate is no sure thing. In a few short months, it could be LITERALLY impossible to get a SC pick past the senate.

 

 

Not to wander aimlessly into a A, B conversation, 

 

But it seems to me that the issues facing our current government structure is that for years people have sacrificed their ideals and beliefs on the alters of power, control, and party. 

 

Agree or disagree with Paul and Cruz, but they are fairly consistent in their desire to walk out their principles. I for one applaud that, and while it's hard in this instance, it is still nice to see government being done the way that it was supposed to be done- with conviction. 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

1 hour ago, joesixpack said:

 

If it means putting control of the process into the Democratic party's hands come November, yes. At that point, it would be grandstanding and promotion of their own self-interest. Don't forget, Collins is on record saying she won't vote for anyone who'd overturn Roe. So if the woman judge (can't remember her name) was the candidate that  Cruz and Paul wanted, she wouldn't pass the senate anyway...due to McCain being incapacitated.

 

I wish I had thought to add this earlier, and added to my prior response, but why wouldn't it be considered grandstanding by the President to nominate someone he knows Paul and Cruz wouldn't vote to confirm?

 

Why would you lay the blame at the fault of the men who said they would not do a thing, and not at the fault of the man who knew they would not do the thing, and proceeded anyway?

 

Why do you feel it is both prudent, and good governance, for an Executive to attempt to bully through his rubber stamp desires instead of working with members of his own party in the Senate to achieve an accord?

Edited July 10, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker

[DC Tom]

51 minutes ago, baskin said:

WTF are you talking about....do you hear yourself?

Arbitrarily changing rules?...executive orders? Not thinking for yourself?

GOP acts the exact same way....

 

Whataboutism. 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

11 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

I wish I had thought to add this earlier, and added to my prior response, but why wouldn't it be considered grandstanding by the President to nominate someone he knows Paul and Cruz wouldn't vote to confirm?

 

Why would you lay the blame at the fault of the men who said they would not do a thing, and not at the fault of the man who knew they would not do the thing, and proceeded anyway?

 

Why do you feel it is both prudent, and good governance, for an Executive to attempt to bully through his rubber stamp desires instead of working with members of his own party in the Senate to achieve an accord?

 

I think my objection is that I don't see Cruz and Paul as having some sort of a moral driver here. Their motivation, in my opinion, is more out of a dislike for trump (especially for Cruz) than it is some high-minded idealism.

 

Don't get me wrong, Trump isn't blameless in this process. That being said, I'm sure there's reason he chose the nominee he did, in spite of the objections of Cruz and Paul.

 

Like, perhaps, other members of his own party who objected to the nomination of someone more palatable to those two.

 

Trump is in a no-win situation here. Like Tom said, no matter who he nominates, getting even a single democratic vote is a non-starter. As a result, he needs unity from his own party. Which is also something he can't reasonably be expected to have. So, I suppose, we'll just have to trust that someone can be found who is palatable to all the spoiled children on capitol hill in time to prevent the democrats from having complete control over the process.

 

Being the pessimist that I am, I have my doubts that this can happen. So, in the end, your process will survive.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 10, 2018 by joesixpack

[TakeYouToTasker]

11 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

I think my objection is that I don't see Cruz and Paul as having some sort of a moral driver here. Their motivation, in my opinion, is more out of a dislike for trump (especially for Cruz) than it is some high-minded idealism.

 

Don't get me wrong, Trump isn't blameless in this process. That being said, I'm sure there's reason he chose the nominee he did, in spite of the objections of Cruz and Paul.

 

Like, perhaps, other members of his own party who objected to the nomination of someone more palatable to those two.

 

Trump is in a no-win situation here. Like Tom said, no matter who he nominates, getting even a single democratic vote is a non-starter. As a result, he needs unity from his own party. Which is also something he can't reasonably be expected to have. So, I suppose, we'll just have to trust that someone can be found who is palatable to all the spoiled children on capitol hill in time to prevent the democrats from having complete control over the process.

 

Being the pessimist that I am, I have my doubts that this can happen. So, in the end, your process will survive.

 

I'd offer that the fact that the President has already seen his first nominee pass this same Senate's confirmation hearing throws water on your objection.

 

The President knows what sort of nominee will pass.

[outsidethebox]

1 hour ago, DC Tom said:

 

It's the feature.

 

The problem is that you want to abandon that feature in the interest of "getting things done."  That makes you...a Democrat, arbitrarily changing cloture rules to get your way, or legislating from the Oval Office with a pen and a phone...

When they take the low road, we'll take the high road!!!

[TakeYouToTasker]

Bear in mind that the Cruz/Paul stuff is all entirely speculative.

 

Senator Paul has never voiced anything that could be construed as objection to Kavanaugh's nomination.  Mitch McConnell reportedly told the White House that Kavanaugh might have a harder time getting through Paul; though Paul himself has said "I look forward to the upcoming hearings, reviewing the record, and meeting personally with Judge Kavanaugh, with an open mind." on his twitter account.

 

While Senator Cruz released the following statement on his official Congressional website: 

 

"By any measure, Judge Kavanaugh is one of the most respected federal judges in the country and I look forward to supporting his nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States. For over a decade, Judge Kavanaugh has served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, often referred to as the second highest court in the land. He has over 300 published opinions, with a strong record of defending the Second Amendment, safeguarding the separation of powers, reining in the unchecked power of federal agencies, and preserving our precious religious liberties.

 

"Senate Democrats, sadly, will try to demagogue this nomination, but their efforts will not be successful. I am confident that the Senate will take up his nomination quickly, and I fully expect that he will be confirmed before the first Monday in October, the beginning of the Supreme Court's Term. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I look forward to his confirmation hearing, where Judge Kavanaugh will have the opportunity to demonstrate to the American people that he will uphold the rule of law and interpret the Constitution according to its original meaning."

 

Edited July 10, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker