SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

[Handyman]

Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

You must have been asleep through the tea party. The Right OWNS the outrage meter. Libs are tame by comparison.

They were like that but pretending the Left doesnt own it now is pure lunacy. The Left eat their own with their outrage. Christ Sarah Silverman just had a movie shot down at the last second because of a skit she did 12 years where she wore blackface. (a skit ABOUT racism and one she has denounced) The Social Justice Warriors on the Left look for any reason to destroy anyone...even the people who fight next to them and support them.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

It will be interesting to see if this Minnesota case make it to the Supreme Court. A high school basketball coach had his defamation case against some parents reinstated, apparently because the Court concluded he wasn't a "public official." It would seem to me a close question as to whether a basketball coach is a "public figure."

https://www.startribune.com/minneso...cism-of-public-high-school-coaches/559406292/

 

[unofan]

Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

So I'm torn on something. I recently received a group request to sign a letter of support for a federal judicial nominee. He's definitely qualified and we've always been on personally friendly terms as acquaintances. My problem is who he's being nominated by (Trump) and who he has worked for (Trump, and not in a merit-based, deep state type of position but a political one).

I honestly think the latter prevents me from supporting his nomination, but I don't feel good about it. Should one act really disqualify 15 previous years of accomplishments? I guess it does, at least for me.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

Is the person going to make the world a better or worse place in your personal and professional opinion? Because this person is “not good” or because they’re directed to do “not good” things and will be successful?

Is not writing the letter going to jeopardize that relationship? Can you potentially explain why you don’t want to write it?

I wouldn’t write the letter, because I don’t believe my personal friendships aren’t more important than climate change, abortion rights, or several other potentially widely damaging topics. I would hope that my friend would understand and compartmentalize the two things, but it’s a risk I’m willing to take.

Similarly, should one act by you (writing the letter) really disqualify 15 years of friendship?

 

[unofan]

Is the person going to make the world a better or worse place in your personal and professional opinion? Because this person is “not good” or because they’re directed to do “not good” things and will be successful?

Is not writing the letter going to jeopardize that relationship? Can you potentially explain why you don’t want to write it?

I wouldn’t write the letter, because I don’t believe my personal friendships aren’t more important than climate change, abortion rights, or several other potentially widely damaging topics. I would hope that my friend would understand and compartmentalize the two things, but it’s a risk I’m willing to take.

Similarly, should one act by you (writing the letter) really disqualify 15 years of friendship?

I'm not worried about the friendship, since we're acquaintances at best. And I doubt he even knows this request was made on his behalf. It's more that I know if he were being appointed by, and worked for, President Generic Republican (say President Romney) I'd have no qualms, but because he voluntarily worked for this president, I do. That's what's giving me pause.

 

[MinnesotaNorthStar]

Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

I don't think being nominated by Trump, or working for Trump should necessarily be a disqualifier. If you think that previous relationship will affect their decision making, then don't sign it. If not, then as you said, he's qualified.

At least, that's how I would approach it.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

I think working for him should be. It’s just a hard line for me.

 

[burd]

Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

So I'm torn on something. I recently received a group request to sign a letter of support for a federal judicial nominee. He's definitely qualified and we've always been on personally friendly terms as acquaintances. My problem is who he's being nominated by (Trump) and who he has worked for (Trump, and not in a merit-based, deep state type of position but a political one).

I honestly think the latter prevents me from supporting his nomination, but I don't feel good about it. Should one act really disqualify 15 previous years of accomplishments? I guess it does, at least for me.

If it's for district court, what kind of trial judge would he be? If you think he would be good, support him. If it's an appellate position, I'd take a different approach. I don't know about bankruptcy judges.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

I think the answer is do you think this person will be a good judge. Is he or she the type of person you’d feel comfortable appearing in front of and confident you’d get a fair and reasoned decision. If so, support them.

 

[unofan]

I think the answer is do you think this person will be a good judge. Is he or she the type of person you’d feel comfortable appearing in front of and confident you’d get a fair and reasoned decision. If so, support them.

And what it comes down to for me is that if you voluntarily worked for this President's administration, it basically signals to me you're either stupid, corrupt, or flagrantly partisan. None of which I would want to put on the bench. And I know he's not stupid.

I don't like thinking that, but there it is.

 

[burd]

Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

And what it comes down to for me is that if you voluntarily worked for this President's administration, it basically signals to me you're either stupid, corrupt, or flagrantly partisan. None of which I would want to put on the bench. And I know he's not stupid.

I don't like thinking that, but there it is.

That's not bad logic, uno, particularly since his prior service was political in nature.

 

[alfablue]

Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

And what it comes down to for me is that if you voluntarily worked for this President's administration, it basically signals to me you're either stupid, corrupt, or flagrantly partisan. None of which I would want to put on the bench. And I know he's not stupid.

I don't like thinking that, but there it is.

Funny thing about that- it's the same reasoning that I'm really not interested in getting to know the people I work with- as I know many of them are dumpy supporters, even some of his more insane policies. And knowing that, it would make me question their integrity (given what we work on). By their reasoning- we shouldn't even be bothering doing the work we do, as de-regulation is the way to go.... So I don't really want to know if they have an interest in changing the state of the art of what we do.

It's a tough choice. When you know someone supports crazy, to the point of volunteering- it does question their judgement. Which is pretty applicable here....

 

[Deutsche Gopher Fan]

And what it comes down to for me is that if you voluntarily worked for this President's administration, it basically signals to me you're either stupid, corrupt, or flagrantly partisan. None of which I would want to put on the bench. And I know he's not stupid.

I don't like thinking that, but there it is.

Bingo

 

[Kepler]

Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

And what it comes down to for me is that if you voluntarily worked for this President's administration, it basically signals to me you're either stupid, corrupt, or flagrantly partisan. None of which I would want to put on the bench. And I know he's not stupid.

I don't like thinking that, but there it is.

I have to agree, and I really don't like thinking it.

There are no good Nazis. If you work for it or vote for it or sponsor it you are it.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

And what it comes down to for me is that if you voluntarily worked for this President's administration, it basically signals to me you're either stupid, corrupt, or flagrantly partisan. None of which I would want to put on the bench. And I know he's not stupid.

I don't like thinking that, but there it is.

It's certainly possible he's corrupt or flagrantly partisan. But there might be other explanations as well. He might be someone with the belief (misguided?) that he can change things for the better from within. I also think that people will take jobs, especially political ones, if they think it means a possibility for advancement (like a judicial appointment), no matter how distasteful it might be to take the appointment.

I don't think you should lose any sleep over your refusal to support him since your reason is certainly justifiable. I once had a chance to hire an employee from a competitor. That competitor, imho, was always a very shady operator. I felt they were dishonest and produced bad product. But I knew the guy and he just didn't feel the same as his employer to me. In the end we didn't hire him. I've often wondered if I made a mistake.

 

[Handyman]

Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

If he worked for Trump just to advance his career that is exhibit A you go against him. It would be one thing if he did it because he is a lifelong GOPer so he always stumps for the nominee but to choose means you are willfully stupid, completely self centered or blind.

 

[Kepler]

Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

I once had a chance to hire an employee from a competitor. That competitor, imho, was always a very shady operator. I felt they were dishonest and produced bad product. But I knew the guy and he just didn't feel the same as his employer to me. In the end we didn't hire him. I've often wondered if I made a mistake.

That's a very good analogy. Thanks for sharing that.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

If he worked for Trump just to advance his career that is exhibit A you go against him. It would be one thing if he did it because he is a lifelong GOPer so he always stumps for the nominee but to choose means you are willfully stupid, completely self centered or blind.

I think that's extreme.

Let's say you are a prosecutor in the U.S. attorney's office in Minnesota when Trump gets elected. Trump boots all of Obama's appointees. If it was your desire to be US Attorney someday and you thought you had a shot, wouldn't you take it, even if it meant you were appointed by Trump?

 

[Handyman]

Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

I think that's extreme.

Let's say you are a prosecutor in the U.S. attorney's office in Minnesota when Trump gets elected. Trump boots all of Obama's appointees. If it was your desire to be US Attorney someday and you thought you had a shot, wouldn't you take it, even if it meant you were appointed by Trump?

Other Republicans...yes. Trump no. But even if I did the second I saw what it truly was I would be out. I am not selling my soul for a job.

Trump and his cronies dont hide what they are. There is no excuse. This is not a case of "joining the Klan because they control the machine" this is going against what the job stands for for political gain. That isnt me. Otherwise I am no better than the GOPers in Congress who go against everything they stand for because Trump has the power they want.

 

[Slap Shot]

Other Republicans...yes. Trump no. But even if I did the second I saw what it truly was I would be out. I am not selling my soul for a job.

Trump and his cronies dont hide what they are. There is no excuse. This is not a case of "joining the Klan because they control the machine" this is going against what the job stands for for political gain. That isnt me. Otherwise I am no better than the GOPers in Congress who go against everything they stand for because Trump has the power they want.

Correct.