And the Winner is...

[JimL]

Calm down, Jim. There's no need to escalate this. Have you considered making your counterpoint more civilly?

Calm down? I'm as calm as can be OBP. The counterpoint I made was in post #10. Quite civil I believe. Now, if you guys would just stop being foolish we can move on.

[Terraceth]

Gee, who could have predicted Trump would value that trait? Oh right, us, last week.

Also, it seems to be increasingly coming out now that Trump had a very close personal relationship with both Justice Anthony Kennedy and his son, banker Justin Kennedy. The fact that Kennedy has been consistently siding with the Republican appointees in 5-4 decision after 5-4 decision over the past year even in the sort of cases where Kennedy would have usually sided with the liberals looks pretty suspicious in the light of that.

And what specific cases are these ones that are "the sort of cases where Kennedy would have usually sided with the liberals"?

Apparently Kennedy negotiated with Trump for months in order to pick his own successor to SCOTUS, and Kavanaugh, one of Kennedy's ex-law clerks, was his pick.

This appears to be little more than paranoid speculation.

[Starlight]

And what specific cases are these ones that are "the sort of cases where Kennedy would have usually sided with the liberals"?

A couple of them would include the cake shop case (Kennedy is a massive fan of same-sex marriage rights and tends to always write the courts pro-same-sex-rights decisions), and the gerrymandering case (Kennedy has been asking for years for social scientists to come up with a mathematical definition of gerrymandering so he can strike gerrymandered districts down, and social scientists have got 3 solid mathematical tests for it now... and he punted the case).

This appears to be little more than paranoid speculation.

I've noticed a general pattern with you that your general method of justifying right-wing / Republican / conservative positions is:
1. Always give Republicans / right-wingers / conservatives any possible benefit of the doubt.
2. Demand unobtainable levels of evidence for any possible Republican / right-winger / conservative wrong-doing.

The two seem to work in tandem to make you look as if you're trying to be reasonable while nonetheless continuing to support your side no matter what. I sometimes wonder if you don't realize that most of the rest of us in the world work on balance of probability, and assess whether we think things are overall more likely that not, rather than demanding 100% certain evidence before we agree to be convinced of something that might be negative about our 'side'.

[rogue06]

Relieved? Like Terry McAuliffe, close confidante of the Clintons and former head of the DNC and former Governor of Virginia? Who tweeted

The nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh will threaten the lives of millions of Americans for decades to come and will morph our Supreme Court into a political arm of the right-wing Republican Party.

Millions! Millions I tell ya! Millions might die because because of Kavanaugh [ATTACH=CONFIG]28778[/ATTACH]

Desperate not to be outdone in the battle for over-the-top hysteronics, Democrat Senator Kamala Harris decided to one up McAuliffe by declaring that Kavanaugh is a threat to not just mere millions of Americans but rather "hundreds of millions" smiley hair-derp.gif

[Terraceth]

A couple of them would include the cake shop case (Kennedy is a massive fan of same-sex marriage rights and tends to always write the courts pro-same-sex-rights decisions), and the gerrymandering case (Kennedy has been asking for years for social scientists to come up with a mathematical definition of gerrymandering so he can strike gerrymandered districts down, and social scientists have got 3 solid mathematical tests for it now... and he punted the case).

Except neither of those were 5-4 cases (Your claim: "Kennedy has been consistently siding with the Republican appointees in 5-4 decision after 5-4 decision over the past year even in the sort of cases where Kennedy would have usually sided with the liberals"). Masterpiece Cake Shop v Colorado Civil Rights Commission was decided 7-2, and Gill v Whitford was decided unanimously. Sure, the rationales in those decisions may have differed among the justices, but the results of the judgments were 7-2 and 9-0. So you're not actually citing evidence for your claim.

Setting aside the fact these weren't 5-4 cases, to say that Kennedy "would have usually sided with the liberals" in is showing only a superficial knowledge of his jurispudence, particularly in the case of Masterpiece Cake Shop. Sure, he's been pro gay rights, but he's also shown himself to be extremely concerned with religious freedom (I saw various supreme court commentators express uncertainty regarding his vote in the case before the decision was reached due to it being a balancing between two issues he's shown strong feelings on). As for Gil v Whitford, your complaint essentially is that Kennedy, in not changing his previous position, is voting in a way not consistent with his previous votes. That does not make sense.

I've noticed a general pattern with you that your general method of justifying right-wing / Republican / conservative positions is:
1. Always give Republicans / right-wingers / conservatives any possible benefit of the doubt.
2. Demand unobtainable levels of evidence for any possible Republican / right-winger / conservative wrong-doing.

The two seem to work in tandem to make you look as if you're trying to be reasonable while nonetheless continuing to support your side no matter what. I sometimes wonder if you don't realize that most of the rest of us in the world work on balance of probability, and assess whether we think things are overall more likely that not, rather than demanding 100% certain evidence before we agree to be convinced of something that might be negative about our 'side'.

I do, in fact, "work on balance of probability" and don't demand 100% certain evidence. I do, however, expect more than 1% certain evidence that appears to be nothing more than paranoid speculation.

[Starlight]

Except neither of those were 5-4 cases (Your claim: "Kennedy has been consistently siding with the Republican appointees in 5-4 decision after 5-4 decision over the past year even in the sort of cases where Kennedy would have usually sided with the liberals"). Masterpiece Cake Shop v Colorado Civil Rights Commission was decided 7-2, and Gill v Whitford was decided unanimously. Sure, the rationales in those decisions may have differed among the justices, but the results of the judgments were 7-2 and 9-0. So you're not actually citing evidence for your claim.

Fair enough correction. I've heard commentators say that they thought some of Kennedy's decisions this term were strange for him and went consistently in support of the Trump administration. I was guessing off the top of my head when I posted that they might have been referring to those cases. Maybe they were referring to a combination of behaviors done separately they were pointing out - strange behavior for him in those cases, and support for Trump in the 5-4 decisions. A quick check reminds me that the major 5-4 decisions were the Union-busting and the Muslim-ban, but I am personally unfamiliar with Kennedy's previous opinions that would impact on those issues, so I don't happen to know how unusual-for-him those decision were.

[NorrinRadd]

Got a cite for that?

His assertion is so inaccurate and ill-informed, it turns out to be an outright lie.

See here.

[NorrinRadd]

Of course he chose wisely, wisely when it comes to protecting himself from prosecution. He also chose a true conservative, but so what, they were all true conservatives thoroughly vetted by the Federalist society and you would be all elated and saying that he chose wisely no matter which one he picked.

FWIW, libertarians are satisfied, but not elated. Judge My Cousin Vinny Napolitano noted that Kavanaugh seems to be fine with things like warrantless wire-tapping.

[NorrinRadd]

OPB already got this - he did win the nomination.

Yeah, the disconnect on presidential investigations is an issue - but frankly, it rankles me more than it will the majority of folks. And I'm not all that rankled.

There's no way in heck for the Democrats to actually drag this out - they killed that process themselves when they did away with the filibuster. I expect Kavanaugh will be confirmed easily enough - and if not, Barrett will be next year. 'Dragging it out' is a very bad idea politically right now - too many Democrat seats are vulnerable. Even some that aren't may go with Kavanaugh (Jones is an idiot if he votes against).

I'm hoping somehow the GOP manages to pick up a few seats in the Senate, and then someone throws a bucket of water on Ginzburg so she joins her sister in Oz. Then we can put Barrett in there. THAT will be a YUGE ideological shift, for decades.

[NorrinRadd]

No need. I heard that they brand it on the foreheads of the inmates.

First they'll have to burn off the 666.

[NorrinRadd]

Don't worry, Tass isn't expressing an original thought here. He's just regurgitating the latest liberal talking point.

Source: Cory Booker: Trump Nominated Brett Kavanaugh for ‘Get out of Jail Free Card’

Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) speculated Monday evening President Donald Trump selected Judge Brett Kavanaugh as his second Supreme Court nominee to protect himself against special counsel Robert Mueller.

https://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...ail-free-card/

© Copyright Original Source

Booker and liberals like Tass are not being entirely honest here because, first of all, Trump is explicitly not under investigation by Mueller or anybody else, and secondly, Kavanaugh never said the president should be "immune". He said, rather, that any civil suits and criminal investigations should be delayed until a sitting president is out of office so as not to distract from his duties of running the country. However, Kavanaugh does support impeachment and removing a president from office if there is evidence of criminal wrongdoing.

http://www.businessinsider.com/brett...ictment-2018-7

Isn't that behind a paywall?

[NorrinRadd]

...
Setting aside the fact these weren't 5-4 cases, to say that Kennedy "would have usually sided with the liberals" in is showing only a superficial knowledge of his jurispudence, particularly in the case of Masterpiece Cake Shop. Sure, he's been pro gay rights, but he's also shown himself to be extremely concerned with religious freedom ...

I've seen a bit of mild concern among conservatives and libertarians that, while being somewhat more conservative overall, Kavanaugh might actually be LESS protective of religious freedom than Kennedy.

[Tassman]

Got a cite for that?

"But there is one stance that sets Judge Kavanaugh apart, and it could not be more timely: his deep skepticism of the wisdom of forcing a sitting president to answer questions in criminal cases.

“I don’t know of any justice who has staked out as strong a position on presidential immunity even from questioning as Judge Kavanaugh has,” Mr. Dellinger said."

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/10/u...-subpoena.html

[Leonhard]

Never heard of him before, not sure I can form an opinion of the guy from political outlets various reactions to him.

[One Bad Pig]

Never heard of him before, not sure I can form an opinion of the guy from political outlets various reactions to him.

Hey Leonhard, good to see you about.