Supreme Court Nominee #3

[human]

Fox News is turning Brett Kavanaugh into a symbol of white grievance

Is Brock Turner in that group?

 

[Gardenista]

Taught by whom? You DO know who the rich are, right?

Taught by those involved in the smear campaign. And yes, I know they were backed by the rich.

 

[fannneee]

What does Kim Jong Un or Duarte think? Any news on that?

Thank you human, I sorely needed that belly laugh

 

[human]

I’m with you in that it all matters. It’s all critically important — it all tied together. Reproductive health, choice, affordability, accessibility — it’s all related.

I disagree, strongly, with the statement that sexual assault and reproductive health/choice only impacts a small number of US women. It impacts most, of not all, of us in some way. Families are built around reproductive health and choice.

Women’s livelihoods and earning power are affected by the brigade to remove these rights from women. It impacts the economic mobility of women, their children, their health, etc.

Sexual assault and harassment also steals from women their social and mental capital.

Think, too, if pregnancy became a preexisting condition like it used to be.

IMO from reading lots of things, the progress of a nation depends on birth control. A nation is better off when women can determine how many children they wish to have, Barefoot and pregnant may be a cliche, but it is based on women not being able to continue education or earn a living.

 

[Inthedetails]

Wow, Susan Collins, she can bring it. Powerful and well researched speech and she knows her constitution.

I am going to have to listen to her speech again. She brought extraordinary wisdom and fairness on so many, many fronts.

I have always respected her but today she's a shining star. And by the way at great protest and threat of voting her out by her constituents in Maine. They would be so sorry if they did that. She's a gem.

She was very reassuring about the Roe v Wade issue from a historical perspective. This is why I want to listen to her again. Her opinions of Kavanaugh's rulings. The fact that Kavanaugh is in line with Garland's opinions 90 percent of the time. Who would have thought? She reminds us there are even more conservative thinkers out there. And she's a moderate republican, so yes, Kavanaugh might be more centrist than I thought.

As a Dem, I thought she brought the case from the opposite side of the isle in a way no one else has.

When she went after the leaker of Dr. Ford's letter, and defended her friend Feinstein, I jumped out of my chair and did my cheerleader best with my imaginary pom poms.

Even though I believe Dr. Ford, she couldn't substantiate her accusations and at the end of the day, the presumption of innocence and due process is a tenant that separates America from the rest.

I do not like Kavanaugh, I do not like Thomas either, but Collins eased some of my fears. We have to wait and see.

Susan Collins has done more for this country today than anyone has in a very long time.
-Imo.

Interesting! Thanks for this thoughtful post. She will be someone to watch, perhaps someone who can steer us through troubled waters (I'm willing to cheer either side of the aisle when good work is happening). I'll keep my eye on her.

jmo

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Yes, Merrick Garland was a highly qualified nominee. Not my preference, he was conservative. His nomination was held up by Republicans for nearly a year, after which time it expired. From Wikipedia:

I believe they said Garland agreed with Kavannah's opinions 97 percent of the time.

They sound like they are very much alike thinking in the appellate court.

Imo

 

[human]

Interesting! Thanks for this thoughtful post. She will be someone to watch, perhaps someone who can steer us through troubled waters (I'm willing to cheer either side of the aisle when good work is happening). I'll keep my eye on her.

jmo

I am contributing as is my husband to the get rid of her fund. Anyone who can accept his mantrum behavior is not a person of any brainpower IMO. I saw with mynown eyes statesmen and women such as Obama, Michelle Obama, Jimmy Carter who maintained dgnity when under fire of the most vile of words by detractors. The lynching displays re Obama were beyond the pale.

Those are my examples.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Interesting! Thanks for this thoughtful post. She will be someone to watch, perhaps someone who can steer us through troubled waters (I'm willing to cheer either side of the aisle when good work is happening). I'll keep my eye on her.

jmo

She truly is a very lovely woman. Her speech was riveting to me. One of the best speeches I have heard lately.

Imo

 

[Inthedetails]

I am contributing as is my husband to the get rid of her fund. Anyone who can accept his mantrum behavior is not a person of any brainpower IMO. I saw with mynown eyes statesmen and women such as Obama, Michelle Obama, Jimmy Carter who maintained dgnity when under fire of the most vile of words by detractors. The lynching displays re Obama were beyond the pale.

Those are my examples.

Also interesting!

And I TOTALLY agree with you about grace under fire. It most certainly can happen, unlike what we witnessed in this hearing. It can happen in much more dire circumstances, as well. I'm thinking of other world leaders who suffered greatly but displayed dignified character anyway and pulled people together, not apart.

Either way, there are plenty of people to watch in the coming months and years. I've noticed people during this whole process that I wasn't paying much attention to, but will going forward.

jmo

 

[fannneee]

I am contributing as is my husband to the get rid of her fund. Anyone who can accept his mantrum behavior is not a person of any brainpower IMO. I saw with mynown eyes statesmen and women such as Obama, Michelle Obama, Jimmy Carter who maintained dgnity when under fire of the most vile of words by detractors. The lynching displays re Obama were beyond the pale.

Those are my examples.

I made my pledge.

 

[Woodland]

Something just occurred to me while listening to LO in this commentary -

It's not that something was said that was profound - my realization is what has not been said by anyone arguing for BK to be elevated to SCOTUS.

What exactly qualifies him? There is a huge argument for and against with no reason by anyone arguing for BK's appointment. Not one and I have been reading much of what is out there.

When one puts everything aside, what exactly is it that BK will bring that no one else can?

I respect CBF's bravery to no end - she had nothing to gain by coming forward and much to lose. So why has this appointment become about CBF accusations and nothing about BK qualifications? Not one senator voting for this appointment has given any commentary on why they think he is the best of the best.

Someone desperately wants this guy in imo, and it's not the WH. Imo, no one in the WH really knows about such things - which among them has the experience to know any better and what the ramifications will be in the long term?

Someone is dancing the American people around with - look here, don't look over there. And that person(s) is doing a good job imo.

I respectfully challenge those posting here for the appointment of BK to give a statement as to why he is the only good choice at that time for SCOTUS. IOW - what is your specific reasoning for supporting this nomination? Imo it will go a long way to supporting your senators opinion and why the world should listen and agree.

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

I believe they said Garland agreed with Kavannah's opinions 97 percent of the time.

They sound like they are very much alike thinking in the appellate court.

Imo

They appear to have a lot in common, unless you examine the points at which they diverge and understand how court opinions are written.

1. They disagree on six key issues: environment, reproductive choice, immigration, prison and sentencing reform, employee rights and police reform.

Kavanaugh and Garland are quite dissimilar, all things considered, imo.

2. Also, a point of fact: It's common for the majority of judges who voted for something to join the majority opinion. Likewise for the dissenting, or minority, opinion. That's pretty much standard operating procedure. What's interesting is when and why they don't join one another's majority opinions, imo.

It's a jump to extrapolate from this that they're nearly ideologically alike 93 percent of the time when interpreting the law and its appropriate application. Because they aren't.​

IMO and all that, with supporting sources, natch.

John M. Crisp: Why did Sen. Ted Cruz bring up Merrick Garland?

In legal findings on which both Garland and Kavanaugh voted, they agreed 93 percent of the time. Of 28 public opinions that Kavanaugh authored while Garland was on the same panel, Garland joined Kavanaugh’s opinion 27 times.

And of Garland’s 30 opinions, Kavanaugh joined in 28 of them. Kavanaugh and Garland appear to have a lot in common in terms of how they view the law.
​

Supreme Court Picks’ Disagreements Show Stakes of Confirmation

The two judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit — Obama pick Merrick Garland and Trump pick Brett Kavanaugh — went different ways in just the past two years on cases about immigration and abortion, criminal sentencing, police misconduct claims and employee rights.

The cases highlight the political stakes of Supreme Court confirmation fights and their potential spillover into the nation’s social and legal landscape as the Senate begins a battle over Kavanaugh in the months before the midterm elections.​

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

@bluesneakers! I see you lurking in here. <3

Happy to see ya.

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

Is Brock Turner in that group?

Yes. Unequivocally, yes. (imo)

 

[bluesneakers]

It's pretty simple. We've been taught it's ok to tell filthy lies about a person who wants to be appointed to SCOTUS and to try to destroy them as a person and destroy their family. The rest of it is self explanatory considering the power the rich have had under the people who have been on the bench for many years.

Georgetown Prep's annual tuition is currently $56k.

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

I already do women's health advocacy, I'd like to add a big focus on senior issues - Social Security expansion, more affordable housing, making Medicare better, etc. We need to revive the Gray Panthers again.

I heart you, @Betty P.

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

@nothingnew, what you're linking to is off-topic, a one-off, and demonstrably unrelated to the organizations you mention.

One misplaced "exception" doesn't disprove the rule.

 

[Mica]

Too many qualifications to list here. See link.


Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh is an Exceptionally Qualified and Deserving Nominee for the Supreme Court

 

[bluesneakers]

What Most Disqualified Brett Kavanaugh For The Supreme Court?
...
“Unable to perform”: Justice John Paul Stevens calls Brett Kavanaugh unqualified for Supreme Court
...
Kavanaugh's Rhetoric Renders Him Unqualified

 

[Jax49]

Partisanship and the high court: Can Kavanaugh overcome the hearings?

Brett Kavanaugh looks poised to become the newest justice on the United States Supreme Court on Saturday.

With Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine throwing her support behind Kavanaugh Friday afternoon, the most bitter and partisan confirmation fight of modern times looks like it will reach its conclusion with Saturday afternoon's vote.