What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

trixR4kids said:
Because the records that were requested weren't even available yet. 42k is still well short of the 100k that is out there and would normally be used in this type of procedure.
Click to expand...

Doesn't he have like 2 or 3 times the stuff out there for review than even RBG?

How's he ruled from the bench? That's where I'd look.
 
Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

jerphisch said:
Uh huh...
You realize his record may extend beyond his rulings as a judge since he has had some other pretty high profile jobs? (I ask this in all seriousness, since your reply seems to ignore that fact)
Click to expand...

See my apparatchik/sausage posting. ;)
 
Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

joecct said:
Didn't he already come out as a "No" a few months ago? Will any documents change his mind?

Political theater for the TV cameras.
Click to expand...

Of course you say that. You know amazing things happen when you actually learn about the candidates which is what he and everyone else is saying and has been saying for months. (hence their "No")

Not that you care...this guy makes you tingle.
 
Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

Handyman said:
Of course you say that. You know amazing things happen when you actually learn about the candidates which is what he and everyone else is saying and has been saying for months. (hence their "No")

Not that you care...this guy makes you tingle.
Click to expand...

Of course he does. If this were a Democratic President and nominee he'd say exactly the opposite to whatever was coming out of the Turtles Mouth.
 
Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

The Sicatoka said:
I can see this both ways:

A 42k page record dump last night? Stinky.

But, this nomination has been known for a couple months. His ruling are judicial record. What have you been doing during those months if not looking at that record?
Click to expand...

Looking at the stuff that was public. They want the rest. You know you wouldnt have to ask these questions if you actually followed along to what is going on.

And if the stuff is just procedural what is the harm in releasing it? No one is making YOU read it but they have to vote on the guy they WANT to read it. It is their job to read it and have access to it. That is how you make informed decisions.
 
Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

Handyman said:
Looking at the stuff that was public. They want the rest. You know you wouldnt have to ask these questions if you actually followed along to what is going on.

And if the stuff is just procedural what is the harm in releasing it? No one is making YOU read it but they have to vote on the guy they WANT to read it. It is their job to read it and have access to it. That is how you make informed decisions.
Click to expand...

It's all about what the Republicans need. Even when they're in the minority. Somehow they sell it better. And what they need right now is him to be confirmed ASAP. And that's what's going to happen.
 
Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

The Sicatoka said:
Doesn't he have like 2 or 3 times the stuff out there for review than even RBG?

How's he ruled from the bench? That's where I'd look.
Click to expand...

That is where most people would BEGIN. There is more to knowing about him than how he rules from the bench especially since he was part of the Ken Starr Circus. Why did he have such a hardon to take down Big Willy but then his ideals changed when he entered the Dubya WH? See if there are wild changes over the cours of soemone's career it is good to know more about what happened in the time frame to see if it is part of an overarching pattern (like if Ken Starr caused him to change how he felt about such investigations) or whether he has a certain bias. (Dems can be taken down by scandal but otherwise Presidents are immune) That is why you need more information.

The GOP held up a nom for a year because they didnt want Darky Al-Jacksonovich to get the opportunity to put someone up. Why the rush all of a sudden? It isnt like they are actually passing anything meaningful...wouldnt it be better to just be more...oh I dont know...CONSERVATIVE and go through everything? Hell they could do this in a month and the numbers wont change at all.
 
Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

Handyman said:
That is where most people would BEGIN. There is more to knowing about him than how he rules from the bench especially since he was part of the Ken Starr Circus. Why did he have such a hardon to take down Big Willy but then his ideals changed when he entered the Dubya WH? See if there are wild changes over the cours of soemone's career it is good to know more about what happened in the time frame to see if it is part of an overarching pattern (like if Ken Starr caused him to change how he felt about such investigations) or whether he has a certain bias. (Dems can be taken down by scandal but otherwise Presidents are immune) That is why you need more information.

The GOP held up a nom for a year because they didnt want Darky Al-Jacksonovich to get the opportunity to put someone up. Why the rush all of a sudden? It isnt like they are actually passing anything meaningful...wouldnt it be better to just be more...oh I dont know...CONSERVATIVE and go through everything? Hell they could do this in a month and the numbers wont change at all.
Click to expand...

Trump is white. His two nominees and ultimately confirmed Supreme Justices will be white (and male for that matter). And the people voting him in will mostly be white.

It all works.
 
Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

Handyman said:
Hell they could do this in a month and the numbers wont change at all.
Click to expand...

There's the key.

What's in the first 400k pages or these 42k or the other 100k really won't change anything at all. The vote will be what it would've been. We get C-Span septuagenarian kabuki in the interim.
 
Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

The Sicatoka said:
I've popped the TV on three times this morning (working from home).

First I heard people shouting over each other; then Grassley droning on; now Minnesota's Ms. K*.

I'm yet to hear Kavanaugh's voice.


*Not intended as a slight; I just can't spell the Senator's name.
Click to expand...

We won't hear from the judge himself until tomorrow.

Gotta love the grandstanding from people that have already made up their mind on how to vote, especially after the whole e-mails debacle.
 
ScoobyDoo said:
Nothing to be confused about. You think it was the right way to go, so be it. But, don't be blind to the fact that the Democrats are taking it up the *** right now because of it.
Click to expand...

No, they're taking it up the *** because the GOP controls the entire government.
 
Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

The Sicatoka said:
There's the key.

What's in the first 400k pages or these 42k or the other 100k really won't change anything at all. The vote will be what it would've been. We get C-Span septuagenarian kabuki in the interim.
Click to expand...
I mean you're not wrong, a lot of this is political posturing and putting on a show. But even if that's the case the withholding of documents isn't the norm and shouldn't be for someone who's going to get a lifetime seat on the court.
 
Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

trixR4kids said:
I mean you're not wrong, a lot of this is political posturing and putting on a show. But even if that's the case the withholding of documents isn't the norm and shouldn't be for someone who's going to get a lifetime seat on the court.
Click to expand...

Republicans are all about creating new norms and Democrats are all about whining about the old ones. Look out how many new norms Turtle Boy, Paul Ryan, and Trump have created while in power.
 
Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

unofan said:
No, they're taking it up the *** because the GOP controls the entire government.
Click to expand...

I would have preferred they have had to get rid of the filibuster on their own. Instead they got a lot of help. At least one of my Senators agrees with me from what I read in the paper. And she stupidly supported Reid's decision at the time.

Republicans know how to fight.
 
Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

trixR4kids said:
I mean you're not wrong, a lot of this is political posturing and putting on a show. But even if that's the case the withholding of documents isn't the norm and shouldn't be for someone who's going to get a lifetime seat on the court.
Click to expand...

And like I said, dropping 42k pages the night before is stinky, it doesn't pass the smell test.


And people call it a lifetime appointment. It's not per se. Justices can be impeached and removed from the Court.
 
Last edited:
Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

ScoobyDoo said:
Republicans are all about creating new norms and Democrats are all about whining about the old ones. Look out how many new norms Turtle Boy, Paul Ryan, and Trump have created while in power.
Click to expand...
Oh I agree though honestly I don't really care about "norms" for the most part as our political process is clearly broken. But in this instance, for a supreme court life seat, you should at least have adequate time to receive and review all relevant documentation related to the candidate just for public transparency sake.
 
Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

The Sicatoka said:
There's the key.

What's in the first 400k pages or these 42k or the other 100k really won't change anything at all. The vote will be what it would've been. We get C-Span septuagenarian kabuki in the interim.
Click to expand...

I didnt say the votes wouldnt change I said the numbers wouldnt. Keep trying though.

For a guy who seems to laud transparency you seem ok with all of this. I wonder why...
 
Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

The Sicatoka said:
And like I said, dropping 42k pages the night before is stinky, it doesn't pass the smell test.


And people call it a lifetime appointment. It's not per se. Justices can be impeached and removed from the Court.
Click to expand...

And that is less likely to happen than a President being impeached. In fact it has happened once ever and they were not removed.
 
Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

Handyman said:
I didnt say the votes wouldnt change I said the numbers wouldnt. Keep trying though.

For a guy who seems to laud transparency you seem ok with all of this. I wonder why...
Click to expand...

When you said numbers what was I to assume but numbers of Senate votes.
And I've already said a 42k drop the night before doesn't pass the smell test. The word used was stinky.

All that said, this'll be a Ds v. Rs vote, save for D's in red states running for re-election.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top