Kavanaugh hearings

CTOkie

Well-known member
Sep 20, 2001
16,344
8,934
113
Just curious....there have been numerous protests interrupting the hearing over the past two weeks.
How have these people been allowed to attend ?
They are protesting Kavanaugh's nomination, which in and of itself I have no problem with. It is the way these people are disrupting the hearings that troubles me.
This crap diminishes whatever cause/causes these protesters are for, but no doubt the media and Democratic leaders will praise this behavior as noble and courageous.
I regard many here as very knowledgeable of history and politics and I want to gauge your opinions with mine.
As for Kavanaugh's chances, I think he faces a very slippery slope and if he gets the job, I think the backlash (episodes of violence and division) will amp up even more...if that's possible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fortworth4ou2

sybarite43

New member
Feb 11, 2008
345
73
0
I would be glad to talk to you. But, I don't want to do it on a sports board.

I tend to begin any discussion about two billion years ago. Every issue arises from its own environment and point in history..

Senate hearings are usually available only by someone's invitation. One party or the other tends to arrange for its own crowd. It makes little difference since the hearings, themselves, are little more than stage plays, opportunities for the pretentious statements of the uninformed and unenlightened. I don't know that there should be a penalty for contempt of Congress when a hearing is in session.

I don't know that Kavanaugh is even relevant. The current Congress has changed some rules and revised some traditions. I think they will find that the next group of Senators to arrive on the scene will make even more changes. Article III, Section 1 is likely to become the most relevant concern in the next few years.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

OUnabomber

New member
Jul 16, 2017
1,976
2,380
0
Just curious....there have been numerous protests interrupting the hearing over the past two weeks.
How have these people been allowed to attend ?
They are protesting Kavanaugh's nomination, which in and of itself I have no problem with. It is the way these people are disrupting the hearings that troubles me.
This crap diminishes whatever cause/causes these protesters are for, but no doubt the media and Democratic leaders will praise this behavior as noble and courageous.
I regard many here as very knowledgeable of history and politics and I want to gauge your opinions with mine.
As for Kavanaugh's chances, I think he faces a very slippery slope and if he gets the job, I think the backlash (episodes of violence and division) will amp up even more...if that's possible.

It was coordinated with the democrats. Its all a part of their little "resist" movement. Pathetic if you ask me.
 

WhyNotaSooner

New member
Nov 1, 2004
37,125
3,423
0
Really? This is such a political bunch of crap. The Dems ask the same questions that go unanswered and the Republicans ask the same questions to reinforce what they want people to hear. Bottom line, Graham summed it up best.......you have to win to name the judge. Game over.

And this is why I voted for Trump. For the Supreme Court Justices. And it's why he'll get my vote again.
 

owenfieldreams

New member
Aug 15, 2010
2,218
999
0
While I am not a fan of Trump, I've always felt that the serving president has the prerogative. I have a much greater issue with Garland not being approved, not because he wasn't qualified but the way the majority handled it and I would say the same thing if the Dems had done the same thing.
 

owenfieldreams

New member
Aug 15, 2010
2,218
999
0
Bork lost the confirmation vote 58-42. 2 Dems voted for him including David Boren. 6 Republicans voted against him.In today's Senate the vote would been and will be on strict party lines although I suspect there will be dems like Joe Manson and Heidi Hiedkamp who will vote for. Kavanaugh is going to be confirmed.
 

Jeremiahxyz

New member
Mar 14, 2007
185
103
0
"Political Parties are the seeds of division" guess who said that ? It was 234
years ago. His initials were GW. And yes he was dead on. Jefferson the
Republican, they called them Anti-Federalist back then. The other side was
Hamilton the Democrat they called them Federalist. To GW, George
Washington they were no different than Whigs and Tories. Just my opinion
but GW was way ahead of his time.
 

OklaBama

Well-known member
Aug 10, 2004
8,739
6,763
102
"Political Parties are the seeds of division" guess who said that ? It was 234
years ago. His initials were GW. And yes he was dead on. Jefferson the
Republican, they called them Anti-Federalist back then. The other side was
Hamilton the Democrat they called them Federalist. To GW, George
Washington they were no different than Whigs and Tories. Just my opinion
but GW was way ahead of his time.

Wouldn’t it be something if there were no political parties. People would actually have to listen to candidates to learn what they stand for instead of going blindly into a voter booth and selecting the name beside the Red or Blue. Without a doubt a big percentage of voters cast a vote for people they don’t know anything about except their political party in state and local elections. Happens every four years too when the stakes are even more important.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WP76 and iasooner1
Jul 14, 2001
14,858
10,033
0
Wouldn’t it be something if there were no political parties. People would actually have to listen to candidates to learn what they stand for instead of going blindly into a voter booth and selecting the name beside the Red or Blue.
Most people would prolly be too damn confused to even make a decision in this scenario. Without it being color coded for them, they prolly wouldn't even attempt to vote.
 

soonerinlOUisiana

New member
May 29, 2004
37,579
26,765
0
While I am not a fan of Trump, I've always felt that the serving president has the prerogative. I have a much greater issue with Garland not being approved, not because he wasn't qualified but the way the majority handled it and I would say the same thing if the Dems had done the same thing.
Supreme court justices are nominated by the president, and appointed on advice and consent of the senate. Garland was nominated, but the senate did not give its consent. All as set forth in the CotUS.
 
  • Like
Reactions: iasooner1

sybarite43

New member
Feb 11, 2008
345
73
0
Supreme court justices are nominated by the president, and appointed on advice and consent of the senate. Garland was nominated, but the senate did not give its consent. All as set forth in the CotUS.
The Senate refused to consider an Obama appointment, something that broke the traditions by establishing that they would wait for a successor of their party. OK. So, let's see how they feel when the next generation, probably assuming power as soon as 2020-2024, decides to implement Article III Section 1 as written, that the judges serve on good behavior. Of course, a ruling that overturns accepted tradition would be bad behavior. When you start playing games, both sides can play.
 

WhyNotaSooner

New member
Nov 1, 2004
37,125
3,423
0
The Senate refused to consider an Obama appointment, something that broke the traditions by establishing that they would wait for a successor of their party. OK. So, let's see how they feel when the next generation, probably assuming power as soon as 2020-2024, decides to implement Article III Section 1 as written, that the judges serve on good behavior. Of course, a ruling that overturns accepted tradition would be bad behavior. When you start playing games, both sides can play.

Lame duck. And as your God of the United States once stated, "Elections have consequences". Your party screwed around, cheated their own, forced Clinton on y'all, and then lost. That loss cost you. If the Dems would have won, Kavenaugh wouldn't even be in the conversation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: iasooner1 and 22LR

soonerinlOUisiana

New member
May 29, 2004
37,579
26,765
0
The Senate refused to consider an Obama appointment, something that broke the traditions by establishing that they would wait for a successor of their party. OK. So, let's see how they feel when the next generation, probably assuming power as soon as 2020-2024, decides to implement Article III Section 1 as written, that the judges serve on good behavior. Of course, a ruling that overturns accepted tradition would be bad behavior. When you start playing games, both sides can play.
The Garland non-hearing was also consistent with the "Biden Rule." Looks like the left's shortsightedness came back to bite them on the butt. Such is the life of liberalism.

And if the left ever really does try to get cute and start screwing around like that, well, ya know, 2nd Amendment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: iasooner1 and 22LR

humblesooner

New member
Oct 8, 2001
1,821
919
0
Most people would prolly be too damn confused to even make a decision in this scenario. Without it being color coded for them, they prolly wouldn't even attempt to vote.

I actually do not vote for people I don't know in primaries, just for this reason. I do not know the candidates or their stances and don't have the time to educate myself on all 400 of them (judges, clerks, councilmen, dog catchers ,etc). I do know that my beliefs are closer to one party much more than the other. I also know that very few people win elections without the backing of one of the major parties. That is how I vote in the general elections.
 

owenfieldreams

New member
Aug 15, 2010
2,218
999
0
The litany of broken precedents or bogus new ones instituted to counter opposition is a snapshot of what's wrong with Congress today. Proper decorum and rules of order have been sh** canned for political expediency and this applies to both sides of the aisle.
 

virgie76712

Well-known member
Nov 7, 2001
18,746
22,519
113
One of the reasons I enthusiastically voted for Trump other than Justice picks? He believes my brain is fully capable of allowing me to obtain a photo ID to present at the voting booth. President Trump believes I'm not too stupid to manage all by myself.