Kavanaugh SCOTUS hearings

[Belsnickel]

(09-04-2018, 06:28 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: in a similar vein, clerks often times guide precedent, being the gatekeepers for the justices they clerk for. Way too much for one person to read or go through on their own.

It comes down to a lack of understanding of how the bureaucracy works. Policy gets made up and down the ladder on a constant basis. That is what allows us to carry out the policies enacted by the elected officials, because they require more detail than they account for (or can write) in their laws.

[*bfine32*]

(09-04-2018, 06:28 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: in a similar vein, clerks often times guide precedent, being the gatekeepers for the justices they clerk for. Way too much for one person to read or go through on their own.

So you agree with Matt that the Staff Sec is a position of policy making?

[GMDino]

(09-04-2018, 06:38 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It comes down to a lack of understanding of how the bureaucracy works. Policy gets made up and down the ladder on a constant basis. That is what allows us to carry out the policies enacted by the elected officials, because they require more detail than they account for (or can write) in their laws.

Careful Matt.  You feel the wrath of accusing someone of "not understanding" something.

[GMDino]

(09-04-2018, 06:15 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: The same guy, literally just yesterday.

I will be at Kavanaugh hearings and I hope to play a role in ensuring that this man does not become the next Supreme Court Justice. https://t.co/6oC7OPlyB8

— Fred Guttenberg (@fred_guttenberg) September 3, 2018

Either he shakes the guys hand, and there's a picture of it and everyone goes "oh man, what a hypocrite showing sympathy while supporting the 2nd Amendment!" or he doesn't shake the guy's hand and there's a picture of it and everyone goes "oh man, what a monster not shaking the hand of the guy who lost his daughter!"

I'd choose to not shake the guy's hand who has literally stated it's his goal to stop your greatest life achievement from happening if it's a trap either way.

But man did the left get some real outragebaiting all over the internet out of that scripted encounter.




(Disclaimer: I really don't know much about Kavanaugh, nor do I particularly care if he gets appointed or not. If he was someone I could vote for or against, I would, but I can't, so I feel like the hand wringing over it is just unnecessary worry for me.)

And that's where we are.  "Showing sympathy" would be seen as "bad" by the right.

[BmorePat87]

(09-04-2018, 06:59 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So you agree with Matt that the Staff Sec is a position of policy making?

Yea, I think they definitely play a role in guiding policy as they determine what the President sees. I don't think that's a bad thing, our bureaucracy requires this, but in the context of this thread, I certainly think it is important to see what he guided to Bush and away from Bush. 

[BmorePat87]

That dad was a douche, don't care if his kid died. He was trying to pull a stunt for his own agenda. You don't try to introduce yourself to a person when they're walking into the biggest job interview of their life.

[Millhouse]

So 70 people were arrested today at the hearing, mostly women shouting about white men or something.

Then there is that one guy who lost his daughter that basically got within a foot of the SCROTUS nominee as soon as he got up from his chair.

Im not trying to make a point, but why are they all allowed in there to begin with? Shouldn't something like this be closed to the public physically, but open via television, internet streams, or radio? Just odd is all to me.

[*bfine32*]

(09-04-2018, 07:43 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Yea, I think they definitely play a role in guiding policy as they determine what the President sees. I don't think that's a bad thing, our bureaucracy requires this, but in the context of this thread, I certainly think it is important to see what he guided to Bush and away from Bush. 

Fair enough; however, I do not see how releasing any documents that the Bush Admin considers worthy of protection is going to have any bearing on Kavanaugh; as I disagree with you and Matt that the Staff Sec makes any policy. He/she is just routing documents to the correct authority. Has 0 to do with his qualifications as SCOTUS member.

Of course I have also taken the stance that the Press Sec does not have to agree with everything the Administration does/states and that has been met with equal objection.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(09-04-2018, 07:32 PM)GMDino Wrote: And that's where we are.  "Showing sympathy" would be seen as "bad" by the right.

Showing sympathy isn't bad, but a guy who's a 2A supporter, and takes 2A lobby money shaking the hand of a guy who introduces himself as the father of a girl who died in a shooting would get plastered by the left all over the internet as hypocrisy and all the virtue signalers on the internet would be typing at only half speed because their other hand would be busy making their keyboard all sticky with outrage.

It was a no-win situation created by a guy who specifically showed up there with the express intent of trying to ruin the guy's job interview/career, and a media that was going to make a story out of the photo regardless of if the hand was shook or not.

Best to just not play the game.

You are (presumably) smart enough to understand this, but you apparently find it too tempting to read that and instead come to the conclusion that I said "showing sympathy is seen as bad by the right". Because who cares about rationality and logic.

[BmorePat87]

(09-04-2018, 07:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course I have also taken the stance that the Press Sec does not have to agree with everything the Administration does/states and that has been met with equal objection.

Ultimately our opinions on this mean very little to how a senator will decide to play their role of confirming appointees, I'm just in the camp that more is better. 

I'd disagree with whoever objected to that statement from the quote. I think that it's perfectly reasonable to believe that anyone in the administration doesn't have to agree with everything the administration does. That doesn't shield them from criticism of the administration, but I agree with your view. 

[*michaelsean*]

(09-04-2018, 03:48 PM)Benton Wrote: Duties aside, the more relevant issue is: "We asked for documents from Kavanaugh’s time as staff secretary because he admitted those years shaped his views as a judge, particularly with regard to issues of executive power".


Some people are making a big deal out of the documents, but if Kavanaugh has said or implied that's where a lot of his opinions came from, then that period and documents are relevant. Ultimately, it's all irrelevant as support is going to be party line, but how he's likely to rule is relevant.


And I think folks screaming about executive privilege when a democrat is POTUS aren't going to find an ally in Kavanaugh. Same with folks who want justices to enforce the constitution instead of legislate, such as wiretapping. 

Im happy for them to get all the documents they want, but he’s been on the bench for 12 years. It’s like asking for college video of Ben R to see what kind of pro he will be.

That being I said I can’t really begrudge the dems any shenanigans. The BS that was pulled on Obama’s nominee deserves some payback

[Benton]

(09-04-2018, 08:17 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Im happy for them to get all the documents they want, but he’s been on the bench for 12 years. It’s like asking for college video of Ben R to see what kind of pro he will be.

That’s a valid point, although the last 12 years may not be as telling about his beliefs toward the executive branch as his six years working in it. Presumably, what he encouraged or discouraged the administration to do would indicate what he might interpret.

[Belsnickel]

(09-04-2018, 08:17 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Im happy for them to get all the documents they want, but he’s been on the bench for 12 years. It’s like asking for college video of Ben R to see what kind of pro he will be.

That being I said I can’t really begrudge the dems any shenanigans. The BS that was pulled on Obama’s nominee deserves some payback

The reason they are doing this is because of the requests from the Republicans for everything on Kagan from her time in the Clinton administration, which would be the same sort of thing just replacing the time on the bench with the time teaching at a law school.

To be honest, I'm for as much vetting as possible because I don't trust the Trump administration to have done any of it themselves.

[Benton]

(09-04-2018, 07:48 PM)Millhouse Wrote: So 70 people were arrested today at the hearing, mostly women shouting about white men or something.

Then there is that one guy who lost his daughter that basically got within a foot of the SCROTUS nominee as soon as he got up from his chair.

Im not trying to make a point, but why are they all allowed in there to begin with? Shouldn't something like this be closed to the public physically, but open via television, internet streams, or radio? Just odd is all to me.

Probably file it under "well, we've always done it that way."

A friend of mine and his family watched the North congressional testimonies. Even back then, they only got tickets because their aunt worked for someone (surgeon general, I think). And they were only allowed in for a half hour at a time.

[*bfine32*]

(09-04-2018, 07:48 PM)Millhouse Wrote: So 70 people were arrested today at the hearing, mostly women shouting about white men or something.

Then there is that one guy who lost his daughter that basically got within a foot of the SCROTUS nominee as soon as he got up from his chair.

Im not trying to make a point, but why are they all allowed in there to begin with? Shouldn't something like this be closed to the public physically, but open via television, internet streams, or radio? Just odd is all to me.

I have no problem with this; hell, Kavanaugh brought his family. I can only assume the intent behind it is to allow the public to observe the proceedings. Unfortunately today, some felt compelled to be a part of the proceedings and they were rightly escorted out.

Also, is it wrong that I laughed at SCROTUS

[GMDino]

(09-04-2018, 07:57 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Showing sympathy isn't bad, but a guy who's a 2A supporter, and takes 2A lobby money shaking the hand of a guy who introduces himself as the father of a girl who died in a shooting would get plastered by the left all over the internet as hypocrisy and all the virtue signalers on the internet would be typing at only half speed because their other hand would be busy making their keyboard all sticky with outrage.

It was a no-win situation created by a guy who specifically showed up there with the express intent of trying to ruin the guy's job interview/career, and a media that was going to make a story out of the photo regardless of if the hand was shook or not.

Best to just not play the game.

You are (presumably) smart enough to understand this, but you apparently find it too tempting to read that and instead come to the conclusion that I said "showing sympathy is seen as bad by the right". Because who cares about rationality and logic.

Again, rather than show sympathy he played power/party over people. Rather than say he supports the 2nd amendment AND can have sympathy for the father of a person shot he had to avoid it so the left didn't saying something bad about him?

That's foolish.

If he couldn't defend himself from accusations that he was nice to someone he should be in the human population let alone the Supreme Court.

And all because he wouldn't to look "bad" to the right.  You said that.  

All while he is saying how impartial he will be.

Sad.

[Vlad]

(09-04-2018, 12:13 PM)fredtoast Wrote: More sound an fury signifying nothing.

The liberals are just putting on a show for their followers. They know the nomination will go through.

Conservatives would do the exact same thing if they were in the Dems position.

Right. The conservatives would do the exact same thing.

Just like they did before and after Obama got elected...you know, the rioting, the illegal protests, the disruptions at the Obama rallies.

The refusal to stand at Obamas State of the Union like petulant children.

[Dill]

(09-04-2018, 07:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Fair enough; however, I do not see how releasing any documents that the Bush Admin considers worthy of protection is going to have any bearing on Kavanaugh; as I disagree with you and Matt that the Staff Sec makes any policy. He/she is just routing documents to the correct authority. Has 0 to do with his qualifications as SCOTUS member.

Of course I have also taken the stance that the Press Sec does not have to agree with everything the Administration does/states and that has been met with equal objection.

A couple of quick points:

1. Bush is fine with turning over the documents. It is the Trump administration which is withholding them.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-to-withhold-100000-pages-of-kavanaughs-white-house-records/2018/09/01/217cf9e0-adf9-11e8-8f4b-aee063e14538_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.8d68cffaafb1

2. The documents could tell us a great deal about Kavanaugh's character. When appointed to the circuit court of appeals, he swore to the Senate he had nothing to do with the Bush WH torture policy, in no way shape or form.  Turns out that he was involved, at least verbally, with the policy process.  It looks like he lied to the Senate back then; the documents currently withheld might shed more light on that adventure.

[Vlad]

(09-04-2018, 07:45 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: That dad was a douche, don't care if his kid died. He was trying to pull a stunt for his own agenda. You don't try to introduce yourself to a person when they're walking into the biggest job interview of their life.

The actual video...security steps in a tad late.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsuutbTgeuM&feature=youtu.be

Whatever it takes to try and demonize the guy. These manufactured "gotcha" moments only hurt the democrats. What idiots.

[Dill]

(09-04-2018, 06:38 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It comes down to a lack of understanding of how the bureaucracy works. Policy gets made up and down the ladder on a constant basis. That is what allows us to carry out the policies enacted by the elected officials, because they require more detail than they account for (or can write) in their laws.

There is an important sense in which policy is "made up and down the ladder."  But policy is still DIRECTED from the top. That is why it matters who wins the presidency and then starts appointing cabinet positions with deputies and undersecretaries. Aside from his gatekeeper role as clerk,  Kavanaugh was later also a political appointee, selected to help craft Bush policies.  He was never a simple, tenured civil servant ready to work for whoever is president.

Especially in the Bush presidency, there was a great deal of pressure to bend rules and norms, not to mention facts, to get desired policy.  People were chosen to do that. E.g., the work of dressing up torture as "enhanced interrogation" was tasked to people like John Woo. That's why I would very much like to know if Kavanaugh had anything to do with crafting Bush policies on terrorism .

So the leaders direct and their appointees create the substance and rationale for the policy.  They (the appointees) are not just neutrally sorting the mail, though people at lower levels might be. They are not "directing" policy, but they may influence or even control its final shape.