Far-left hysteria rising: Democrats demand more than a million papers on Judge Kavanaugh (Harry Reid, Kennedy)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You're talking about Kagan. The reason why those papers of hers were requested is that Kagan never served as a judge. There was nothing BUT those papers to on which to evaluate her.
Kavanaugh, on the other hand, has mountains of judicial decisions that you can look at if you want to evaluate him.
There was a wealth of writings on which to judge her.
She clerked at the Supreme Court, and at an appellate court. As you may know, THE CLERKS DO THE RESEARCH AND OFTEN WRITE THE OPINION DRAFTS FOR THE JUDGES/JUSTICES. She was a professor at two universities, one of which was Harvard. She became Dean at Harvard.
She was an associate counsel @ the W.H. AND an advisor to Clinton. THEN she became the Solicitor General of the U.S. (4th highest ranking official at the DOJ).
Not shabby qualifications. Certainly more stellar than Kavanaugh's. AND a roomful of writings and documents on which to judge her judgment, her fairness, her skill, and whatever else they were digging for, without the WH documents. Nevertheless, the White House documents were respectfully produced when requested (except, I think, for privileged internal memos). Nothing to hide.
It is the norm to produce the non-privileged White House documents (Bork & others).
So clearly, there's something to hide about Kavanaugh.
You might not like it; I'm sure I wouldn't if the tables were turned. But the fact is that it was done in strict accord with the US Constitution.
We got Gorsuch not Garland because the Democrats lost the WH and Senate in 2016. As President Obama said, "elections have consequences." Or as Rahm Emanuel frequently said as Obama's COS: "We've got the votes. F*** [expletive redacted] 'em." (as recorded in The Price of Politics by Bob Woodward).
Quote:
Originally Posted by emm74
and that's of course a lie, because Garland was nominated well ahead of the 2016 election. McConnell and the GOP stole a SCOTUS seat, plain and simple.
And Kavanaugh's record is subject to scrutiny because that is the norm for SCOTUS nominees. He's not entitled to special treatment just because he's a Trump nominee, yet that seems to be the standard the GOP expects now.
What is the lie? No one said that Garland wasn't nominated prior to the election. McConnell stalled the confirmation, in accordance with the US Constitution, and made it stick because the GOP kept the Senate and won the WH.
The only lie would be to say that the seat was stolen, when it was done 100% in accord with the US Constitution.
What is the lie? No one said that Garland wasn't nominated prior to the election. McConnell stalled the confirmation, in accordance with the US Constitution, and made it stick because the GOP kept the Senate and won the WH.
The only lie would be to say that the seat was stolen, when it was done 100% in accord with the US Constitution.
I didn't forget, you just remain incorrect. There is zero Constitutional basis for McConnell deciding that he was not going to let a nomination proceed through the process. He didn't have to vote for him, but as the president's nominee, Garland should have received the respect and courtesy of a hearing and a vote.
As for cherry picking from your other post, the definition of cherry picking would be insisting on some random point in time as you did. Not the person who was making a point about the current composition of the court right now.
Nope. Bork got the courtesy of a vote, and he went down. You can't say the same for Garland.
Yep.
the idea that anyone on the right could say it was perfectly fine for McConnell to steal a SCOTUS seat by not even allowing a hearing and vote, but then also complain that it wasn't fair that after the benefit of a full hearing, Bork's nomination was rejected, just shows the extreme hypocrisy of the right.
Status:
"A solution in search of a problem"
(set 24 days ago)
Location: New York Area
34,566 posts, read 16,631,798 times
Reputation: 29711
Quote:
Originally Posted by emm74
and that's of course a lie, because Garland was nominated well ahead of the 2016 election. McConnell and the GOP stole a SCOTUS seat, plain and simple.
The elephant in the room on that is that Scalia was a conservative judge and Obama would have had a chance, at 11:29 p.m. if not 11:59 p.m. to tip the balance on the Court through much of the next President's term if Trump won (which indeed he did, but over my vote). Replacing Scalia with Gorsuch has had zero effect on the Court's ideological balance. Kennedy was a centrist, but Trump's replacement of him is comfortably mid-term.
I would argue that if a liberal justice steps down, either through retirement or into the grave, during calendar year 2020 it would be better not to replace him or her if the direction of the next election is not clear. I fear, however, that a Trump landslide is coming.
Quote:
Originally Posted by natalie469
Every Supreme Court nominee should be (s)crutinized to the fullest since they are appointed for life
No one is arguing that. People are arguing that Trump should have no right to make appointments at all since he is the subject of (spurious) investigations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight
There is a lot of baggage in Kavanaugh's background that requires discussion, they can speed this through and give him a pass but it will come out. I want to know his comments on torture during the Bush administration, the Senate Judiciary committee should also. The question on how he changed his mind on presidential indictments will obviously come up.
A lawyer is a hired gun for their client. They have only a minimal duty to be objective. If the "client", i.e. the Bush Administration takes a position their lawyers have the duty, in all but exceptional circumstances, to advocate that position.
Further, lawyer-client communications are, in most instances privileged. For that reason those papers must not be revealed.
The Republican controlled Congress refused to even consider President Obama's choice for the SCOTUS. Having said that I see absolutely no problem with anything the Democrats want to do in order to hinder the process on Kavanaugh or any other Trump nominee.
If the "client", i.e. the Bush Administration takes a position their lawyers have the duty, in all but exceptional circumstances, to advocate that position.
Further, lawyer-client communications are, in most instances privileged. For that reason those papers must not be revealed.
It’s not privileged unless there is a very good reason, this is not a typical lawyer client relationship. If he deemed torture as being constitutional that should be made public. He is already on record regarding his turnaround on presidential indictments. There is no rationale for keeping his views private at this point.
It’s not privileged unless there is a very good reason, this is not a typical lawyer client relationship. If he deemed torture as being constitutional that should be made public. He is already on record regarding his turnaround on presidential indictments. There is no rationale for keeping his views private at this point.
Status:
"A solution in search of a problem"
(set 24 days ago)
Location: New York Area
34,566 posts, read 16,631,798 times
Reputation: 29711
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight
It’s not privileged unless there is a very good reason, this is not a typical lawyer client relationship. If he deemed torture as being constitutional that should be made public. He is already on record regarding his turnaround on presidential indictments. There is no rationale for keeping his views private at this point.
CPLR 4503(a), establishing the attorney-client privilege in New York states:
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYCLPLR 4503(a)
Unless the client waives the privilege, an attorney or his or her employee, or any person who obta ins without the knowledge of the client evidence of a confidential communication made between the attorney or his or her employee and the client in the course of professional employment, shall not disclose, or be allowed to disclose such communication, nor shall the client be compelled to disclose such communication, in any action, disciplinary trial or hearing, or administrative action, proceeding or hearing conducted by or on behalf of any state, municipal or local governmental agency or by the legislatur e or any committee or body thereof. Evidence of any such communication obtained by any such person, and evidence resulting therefrom, shall not be disclosed by any state, municipal or local governmental agency or by the legislature or any committee or body thereof. The relationship of an attorney and client shall exist between a professional service corporation organized under article fifteen of the business corporation law to practice as an attorney and counselor -at -law and the clients to whom it renders legal services.
Show me a "torture opinion exception."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
