Wow, that was pretty powerful…and very true.
There is that parsing we just talked about.
The New York Times cited an extensive study over Supreme Court nominations and processes. The study is in the link before the New York Times article. The study is quite extensive on literally every Supreme Court nomination an appointment.
Of course I can’t force you to read it but I also cannot force you to learn facts.
I know the facts and I don’t need a liberals trash study denying reality to give them to me.
Fact: Every single time in history a SCOTUS seat has been vacated in an election year with the president and senate from opposing parties the seat has remained vacant (save once). there is nothing else relevant to that.
You know the “facts” as they’ve been spoodfed to you and you gobbled them down.
It’s not a “liberal trash study.” It’s an academic paper, with extensive citations, looking at the history of SCotUS vacancies, the circumstances under which they happened, and the results/context of literally every single SCotUS vacancy in the history of the US. Hell, the last part of the essay is literally single supreme court vacancy, proposed vacancy, nomination, circumstances under which they happened, when they happened, etc.
I can only bring the water to you. I can’t force you to accept the facts as they are.
Of course not-because looking at the entire picture, instead of the narrow set of circumstances that must exist for your “precedent” to exist is the only way you can claim precedent. You don’t want to look at the entire picture because context doesn’t matter to you. Just blathering partisan politics.
This is absolutely one of the stupidest and saddest posts I’ve ever read.
Here’s for you buddy.
Nobody spoon fed me anything, I looked it up myself. The facts I site are historical facts. The study you site is designed to deny the reality of the facts and is trash. There is only one salient fact:
Every time in US history that the President and Senate majority have been from opposing parties and a SCOTUS vacancy has occurred in an election year the seat has remained vacant until after the election (save once). There is no spin from any study that can change that fact. Denying that that precedent was set in 1828 and followed 100% (-1) of the time is a denial of reality.
Vacancies created outside of an election year are not a part of the discussion as they do not fit the precedent. I know you’d like to include them, but they just ain’t it.
The “entire picture” is simple. Go find me ONE vacancy created in an election year with the President and Senate from opposing parties that was filled before the election took place with the exception of the Chief Justice seat which is different. (I believe it did happen once… lets see if you can find it)
What a desperate insult.
Another desperate insuolt.
of course you did.
Cite. Facts without much context-which is conveniently left out to provide further context. Your “Facts” are incomplete. Mine provide full context. That’s the difference.
No, the study I **c**ited puts every single supreme court vacancy in US history in context. I’m sorry that destroys your attempt at establishing a precedent.
Precedent, except when the precedent wasn’t followed, doesn’t establish a precedent.
LOL… every single SCOTUS vacancy is not at question. Only those created in an election year with the POTUS and Senate from opposing parties. That is the context. Nothing else is included in the context. History is what it is and the historical facts are what they are. No spin by any liberal egghead morons published in the leftist times can change that. I understand though, your liberal masters have provided you with a study (spin) to explain it all away in your desperate attempt to see republicans as evil and Obama’s nominee as a victim of them.
Every single vacancy is irrelevant, Only those created in an election year with the Senate and POTUS from opposing parties is.
Yes. It is opinion just like I said. And proves nothing. You found two who agree with you. And one that disagrees. All of whom are no doubt biased, as are we. Congratulations.
"Only those created in an election year with the POTUS and Senate from opposing parties. That is the context. Nothing else is included in the context. "
Thank you for that bit of self-serving, fabricated horse hockey. Your argument amounts to: Republicans made up a thing, so that means it’s a thing. More things to be fabricated as needed. For example, in this hearing, documents from candidate for time served at White House no longer needed. For a previous recent candidate, they were absolutely required, and produced, but now it’s different. Because, Republicans.
You’re ignoring the dissent, also published by the Times. You have confirmation bias.
Everything is a Circus with the extreme left Democrats.
Proven BS. Bush has been rubber stamping declassification of the Kavenaugh documents demanded by Democrats as fast he can. In fact, they have almost all of them. That does not stop them from lying or you from believing the lies.
’ Nothing self fabricated. Just facts. like for instance the documents didn’t seem to be needed for kagan
" In 2010, Solicitor General Elena Kagan was nominated to the Supreme Court. The Senate Judiciary Committee did not request internal documents from her tenure in that office so as not to jeopardize sensitive and candid deliberations. As then-Ranking Member Jeff Sessions said at Kagan’s confirmation hearing:
Well, I would say I have been interested in what might be in those internal documents you were involved in in the Solicitor General’s office, but have refrained from asking for it. But based on that answer, I assume that you would advise other members of the Senate that in the future they should not be demanding such documents of a nominee, absent some special, discrete problem that may justify it in an unusual case. (Hearing Record, page 293)
Kagan agreed. And having had no judicial record at the time, those documents could have served to inform senators about her legal thinking and potential jurisprudence. When asked to identify points that might indicate how she would approach her new role as justice, Kagan said:
Senator Kohl, I think you can look to my whole life for indications of what kind of a judge or Justice I would be. I think you can certainly look to my tenure as Solicitor General and the way I have tried to approach and handle that responsibility. (Hearing Record, page 89)
So it held that the Senate would not seek documents that endanger sensitive deliberation, despite their admitted relevance. For the records from Judge Kavanaugh’s tenure as staff secretary, the same reasoning holds. As Chairman Grassley has said:
…these documents are both the least relevant to Judge Kavanaugh’s legal thinking and the most sensitive to the Executive Branch."
No, it is not BS. The point is that when the judiciary committee chairman Grassley sent the committee’s request for documents, weeks ago, he refused to include the requests of the minority for the White House documents. The documents that are now being received are being received far too late for them to be read and analyzed PRIOR to the questioning of Kavanaugh. Intentional act on the part of the Republicans.
1 Like
Ok, that’s funny as hell.
Akhil Reed Amar strikes me as a freakin’ genius.
If you’re not watching this hearing, you’re missing an education. Amar just held forth on the Reconstruction Amendments.
The civil war and subsequent reconstruction were the 2nd most significant events in the formative history of this country.
Yeah it was.
