The hearing- comments and observations (ongoing)

[toastedbread]

I knew the divide was wide between the partisan left Democrats and the partisan right Republicans, but this has convinced me it’s wider than I thought. And it’s very, very deep. I spent some time yesterday on Facebook just reading comments and arguments from and between my very partisan Democratic friends from mostly our high school era and my partisan Republican friends from the same era. These people were mostly close friends with each other and some claim they still are, but you couldn’t tell that from the raw emotional posts they were throwing at each other or the like minded posts they were posting to their like minded friends. Those on the left are convinced Republicans have become an evil scourge and that Kavanaugh is a rapist, a serial sexual abuser at best, and pure Republican evilness in human form. Those on the right are convinced Democrats have become an evil scourge and what’s going on with the opposition and allegations against Kavanaugh is evil, dirty politics by the Democrats. Both sides are hoping mad. I saw people join in on these arguments that I’ve not seen post much about politics before. This event has really brought out the worst in the hyper partisan worlds of the left and right. Both confirming or not confirming Kavanaugh will make a side even more furious. I don’t know where that will lead.

I said a few days ago that if it were up to me, I’d pull Kavanaugh’s nomination and replace him. Not because I’m convinced that he’s guilty of the allegations against him (I’m one that thinks it’s impossible to know based on what we know), but because we don’t need a Justice with this baggage, fair baggage or not. I’m only hoping that debate over the replacement nominee would be less divisive and more civil. My hope could be too optimistic, but who knows?

I think our 40th high school reunion next year could be very interesting. I hope there isn’t a brawl.

First, I absolutely agree with you that at this current time, we have no way of knowing whether or not Ford's claims about Kavanaugh are true.

Second, what I thought was disqualifying was his opening statement blaming Democrats, the Clinton's, and the left wing. I thought it was completely inappropriate for a supreme Court nominee to speak in such terms. I believe he should be impeached from his current court for using such language. I don't see how any member of the Democratic party could receive a fair trial from Kavanaugh. The language he used was highly partisan. If we compare his testimony with Ford's, she appeared far more judicial in her tempermant.

Lastly, in my view, there is only one party that is doing everything in its power to actively harm Americans and their family members in the most cruel and vicious ways possible. I speak from personal experience that it's the Republican party.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I knew the divide was wide between the partisan left Democrats and the partisan right Republicans, but this has convinced me it’s wider than I thought. And it’s very, very deep. I spent some time yesterday on Facebook just reading comments and arguments from and between my very partisan Democratic friends from mostly our high school era and my partisan Republican friends from the same era. These people were mostly close friends with each other and some claim they still are, but you couldn’t tell that from the raw emotional posts they were throwing at each other or the like minded posts they were posting to their like minded friends. Those on the left are convinced Republicans have become an evil scourge and that Kavanaugh is a rapist, a serial sexual abuser at best, and pure Republican evilness in human form. Those on the right are convinced Democrats have become an evil scourge and what’s going on with the opposition and allegations against Kavanaugh is evil, dirty politics by the Democrats. Both sides are hoping mad. I saw people join in on these arguments that I’ve not seen post much about politics before. This event has really brought out the worst in the hyper partisan worlds of the left and right. Both confirming or not confirming Kavanaugh will make a side even more furious. I don’t know where that will lead.

I said a few days ago that if it were up to me, I’d pull Kavanaugh’s nomination and replace him. Not because I’m convinced that he’s guilty of the allegations against him (I’m one that thinks it’s impossible to know based on what we know), but because we don’t need a Justice with this baggage, fair baggage or not. I’m only hoping that debate over the replacement nominee would be less divisive and more civil. My hope could be too optimistic, but who knows?

I think our 40th high school reunion next year could be very interesting. I hope there isn’t a brawl.

The divide is wide, and widening. It is like the expansion of the universe, the sides keep separating. I used to agree with some of the moderates on here that we need a moderate party. But I don't think one would win anything. What people want is for the other party to be moderate. True moderates are very far and few between. It would be great if there could be a cease fire brokered. Any chance Henry Kissinger could shuttle between the DNC and RNC and work one out? Nah, he failed in the middle east and that's just child's play compared to those two.

Something will allow the elasticity to snap us back together. It took a war in 1861, and the end of a war in 1973 to end those times of separation. I might also add the depression as a similarly divided time, we had Dugout Doug leading troops against the bonus army but that separation was also solved. I don't know when or what will pull us back, but it will eventually happen. I hope.

 

[Hank Reardon]

What's your pretty good idea?

Don't know what his idea is, but if true they're all voting the same way then my guess would be NO. Sticking together provides cover for them. No one individual takes the heat for derailing it.

 

[MonroeCity]

Centrists are going to stick together....But not sure which way that is....(though I've got a pretty good idea).

View embedded media

If true, that's it folks. The fat lady just hit the high-C and is riding her chariot off the stage towed by Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer

 

[Fro]

Davis refused to take any testimony from Ramirez other then written, which definitely seems like a railroad job

 

[toastedbread]

View embedded media

Davis refused to take any testimony from Ramirez other then written, which definitely seems like a railroad job

Michael Avenatti's client alleged gang rape under the threat of imprisonment. He won a successful verdit with Stormy Daniels. We should be hearing from his client.

 

[Jeb MT Mater]

The divide is wide, and widening. It is like the expansion of the universe, the sides keep separating. I used to agree with some of the moderates on here that we need a moderate party. But I don't think one would win anything. What people want is for the other party to be moderate. True moderates are very far and few between. It would be great if there could be a cease fire brokered. Any chance Henry Kissinger could shuttle between the DNC and RNC and work one out? Nah, he failed in the middle east and that's just child's play compared to those two.

Something will allow the elasticity to snap us back together. It took a war in 1861, and the end of a war in 1973 to end those times of separation. I might also add the depression as a similarly divided time, we had Dugout Doug leading troops against the bonus army but that separation was also solved. I don't know when or what will pull us back, but it will eventually happen. I hope.

In the short term, the one hope for some change is having a larger percentage of women elected to Congress, especially on the Republican side. I say, one hope for some change. Even that wouldn't guarantee anything, especially for those women who are rapid partisans on either side.

In the longer term, your view of moderates matches the typical partisan view of what a moderate is and I don't think it's an accurate view. The partisan view of moderation is to take the current polarized, partisan positions and moderate them to get a moderate. That's not how (we) moderates see things. Our view is a mixture of of issues, some taken from either side. Once you get that, then it becomes easier to understand 1) the high percentage of "independent" voters, and 2) why their current voting appears to be more partisan than they are -- they lean one way or the other, given no "real" moderate choice.

Take abortion for example, one of the biggest current black-and-white dividers. To you, a moderate view might mean something like accepting PP but preferring earlier termination guidelines. I happen to be a "moderate" (I prefer pragmatist of course) who disagrees with abortion. Period. I disagree with abortion. And yet I seem to many here as a hyperpartisan liberal. Why? Because I take great offense at the notion of electing someone like Trump who is so disrespectful of human values and who perpetually lies through his teeth. My mix of politics starts with green, save the planet. But I'm also a staunch rugged individualist. Not that I diasgree with helping people, but I KNOW that helping them for too long RUINS them and that saddens me deeply. My idea of helping them is to get them back on their feet and getting them back into the flow of life. And so on...

 

[iu_a_att]

I knew the divide was wide between the partisan left Democrats and the partisan right Republicans, but this has convinced me it’s wider than I thought. And it’s very, very deep. I spent some time yesterday on Facebook just reading comments and arguments from and between my very partisan Democratic friends from mostly our high school era and my partisan Republican friends from the same era. These people were mostly close friends with each other and some claim they still are, but you couldn’t tell that from the raw emotional posts they were throwing at each other or the like minded posts they were posting to their like minded friends. Those on the left are convinced Republicans have become an evil scourge and that Kavanaugh is a rapist, a serial sexual abuser at best, and pure Republican evilness in human form. Those on the right are convinced Democrats have become an evil scourge and what’s going on with the opposition and allegations against Kavanaugh is evil, dirty politics by the Democrats. Both sides are hoping mad. I saw people join in on these arguments that I’ve not seen post much about politics before. This event has really brought out the worst in the hyper partisan worlds of the left and right. Both confirming or not confirming Kavanaugh will make a side even more furious. I don’t know where that will lead.

I said a few days ago that if it were up to me, I’d pull Kavanaugh’s nomination and replace him. Not because I’m convinced that he’s guilty of the allegations against him (I’m one that thinks it’s impossible to know based on what we know), but because we don’t need a Justice with this baggage, fair baggage or not. I’m only hoping that debate over the replacement nominee would be less divisive and more civil. My hope could be too optimistic, but who knows?

I think our 40th high school reunion next year could be very interesting. I hope there isn’t a brawl.

We often disagree about things but your description of the divide seems spot on. I also agree with your inclination to step back and reflect on that divide. Your sense is that it is important to create some distance from partisan emotions in order to do that. All this seems sensible.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

In the short term, the one hope for some change is having a larger percentage of women elected to Congress, especially on the Republican side. I say, one hope for some change. Even that wouldn't guarantee anything, especially for those women who are rapid partisans on either side.

In the longer term, your view of moderates matches the typical partisan view of what a moderate is and I don't think it's an accurate view. The partisan view of moderation is to take the current polarized, partisan positions and moderate them to get a moderate. That's not how (we) moderates see things. Our view is a mixture of of issues, some taken from either side. Once you get that, then it becomes easier to understand 1) the high percentage of "independent" voters, and 2) why their current voting appears to be more partisan than they are -- they lean one way or the other, given no "real" moderate choice.

Take abortion for example, one of the biggest current black-and-white dividers. To you, a moderate view might mean something like accepting PP but preferring earlier termination guidelines. I happen to be a "moderate" (I prefer pragmatist of course) who disagrees with abortion. Period. I disagree with abortion. And yet I seem to many here as a hyperpartisan liberal. Why? Because I take great offense at the notion of electing someone like Trump who is so disrespectful of human values and who perpetually lies through his teeth. My mix of politics starts with green, save the planet. But I'm also a staunch rugged individualist. Not that I diasgree with helping people, but I KNOW that helping them for too long RUINS them and that saddens me deeply. My idea of helping them is to get them back on their feet and getting them back into the flow of life. And so on...

I don't know, I would consider myself a moderate in most respects. Take abortion, I have no strong sense on abortion. I generally accept that there is a right for a person to choose a medical procedure that is best for them, yet I generally accept the government has some powers in such issues (we don't allow a lot of medical treatments because they are deemed unsafe). So I am willing to accept a lot of compromise on the issue.

Healthcare, the current system sucks. I'd love Medicare for all but I'm willing to go just about anywhere. Some conservatives love Singapore, fine, I'll take that. Not my first choice.

Heck, in one of the threads here I said I'd abstain on Kavanaugh. Find a more moderate position than that one anywhere.

For a long time, until maybe 2012, I was a full on Harry Truman Democratic hawk. Which is a far cry from most of the Democratic Party.

See, we can't even agree on what moderate is. I see people I think I could work with, Ranger, Twenty, Aloha are all Republicans or former Republicans I am certain I could compromise with on most issues. But here is the catch to that, Aloha is going to vote for someone like Kasich for president and there is very little chance the Democrats would select someone I would like less than Kasich. And even if a moderate Democrat won the primary, I doubt Aloha would like them more than Kasich.

There are not a lot of people who would say "Yes, I will vote for a moderate of the other wing over a mainstream of my wing". If they exist, why are they in the wing they claim to be in?

 

[Fro]

Centrists are going to stick together....But not sure which way that is....(though I've got a pretty good idea).

View embedded media

Joe's a "no". Will kick in some more $$ for him

 

[Jeb MT Mater]

I don't know, I would consider myself a moderate in most respects. Take abortion, I have no strong sense on abortion. I generally accept that there is a right for a person to choose a medical procedure that is best for them, yet I generally accept the government has some powers in such issues (we don't allow a lot of medical treatments because they are deemed unsafe). So I am willing to accept a lot of compromise on the issue.

Healthcare, the current system sucks. I'd love Medicare for all but I'm willing to go just about anywhere. Some conservatives love Singapore, fine, I'll take that. Not my first choice.

Heck, in one of the threads here I said I'd abstain on Kavanaugh. Find a more moderate position than that one anywhere.

For a long time, until maybe 2012, I was a full on Harry Truman Democratic hawk. Which is a far cry from most of the Democratic Party.

See, we can't even agree on what moderate is. I see people I think I could work with, Ranger, Twenty, Aloha are all Republicans or former Republicans I am certain I could compromise with on most issues. But here is the catch to that, Aloha is going to vote for someone like Kasich for president and there is very little chance the Democrats would select someone I would like less than Kasich. And even if a moderate Democrat won the primary, I doubt Aloha would like them more than Kasich.

There are not a lot of people who would say "Yes, I will vote for a moderate of the other wing over a mainstream of my wing". If they exist, why are they in the wing they claim to be in?

Ranger and Twenty, yes, Aloha I see as a sensible but very conservative Republican.

The word moderate itself is a barrier to defining what it is.

Let's ignore the far right and far left 10%. What are the primary concerns of the middle 80%? I'd argue economic. Jobs. If there were a party which could really create a great situation for that 80%, that would be my party and I think it would be the party for most of that 80%. I think people would vote for that party even if it refused to take a position on abortion, guns, immigration, health care, you name it. Just run on the economy.

Of course, the legislators of that party would have to deal with health care and other issues. I'd just let abortion get decided in the courts, putting sensible, apolitical SC justices in to decide those matters. On health care, I think there are good solutions possible if the middle 80% were to get together and really tackle the problem Right now, teh economic-minded conservatives refuse to cooperate with the social-minded liberals and vice versa. That's irrational. And so on...

I really don't think it's all that difficult. The main reason it doesn't happen is that the middle 80% aren't too interested in politics, either as observers or as participants.

 

[Jeb MT Mater]

One more point to the above post. I think the middle 80% party would invariably get the votes of the left 10%, because they also care about jobs and the economy. The only hold-outs would be the far-right 10%, whose wealth is existentially dependent on the rest living under the anchor of scarcity.

 

[wiede]

Don't know what his idea is, but if true they're all voting the same way then my guess would be NO. Sticking together provides cover for them. No one individual takes the heat for derailing it.

This is the correct read. I think

Hopefully Flake and Murkowski’s call for further FBI investigation happens.

If he didn’t do any of these things, it’ll be shown that he didn’t do them.

If it does show that he did these things (or some of these things), he doesn’t belong on the court anyway.

If he is confirmed and there isn’t a further inquiry, he’ll forever have a cloud hanging over his head. And, I can see civil suits happening that will eventually get us closer to the truth. God forbid that something comes out of those suits- and K is sitting on the SC when it happens.

Remember, the Anita Hill hearings happened AFTER his FBI investigation was re-opened. Which didn’t happen here. And he still got confirmed. So it’s not as if an FBI investigation is the end of his nomination. We simply don’t know enough yet. And moving forward now sets some really bad precedent.

This isn’t difficult. Not getting the FBI involved for further inquiry would be really, really dumb. For everyone involved.

 

[Stuffshot]

The committee already has Mark Judge's statement under oath from a closed hearing. Says the same thing as his in person testimony would.

Not if I get to ask some questions for more than five minutes starting with, "what does FFFFF" mean among your circle of friends in high school?," "what is "jungle juice" and "did you ever see Kavanaugh drink, prepare or serve any 'jungle juice' before he met the legal drinking age for non-beer drinks?" And, "to the best of your knowledge, did your close friend and carpool partner Kavanaugh understand the meaning of these terms the same way you understand them?"

If you guys took a close look at Kavanaugh's testimony yesterday (which included deflections blaming the content of his personal yearbook entries on a yearbook editor of all things), you would understand that the questions could very well establish that crying, vengeful, biased, hateful Kavanaugh was also Lying Kavanaugh as to his high school party experience.

 

[Stuffshot]

There have been plenty of less than stellar individuals on the SC throughout history.

The absolute worst one so far as I'm concerned:

Do you agree?

 

[Rockfish1]

The absolute worst one so far as I'm concerned:

Do you agree?

Taney is certainly one of the very worst. If you discuss him at cocktail parties, make sure to get his last name right (TAW-nee).

Back in the day Butler let me teach a constitutional history class for a couple of semesters, and Dred Scott v. Sanford was fun to teach. After we talked about whether it was reprehensible (yes), I tasked students to tell me whether and how its constitutional analysis was incorrect. This is a much harder question than anyone would like to think. (Slave interests really loaded up the Constitution.)

My own take is that, like James Buchanan and Andrew Johnson, Roger Taney was among the mediocrities who held too many positions of power at a fateful time, but there was going to be a Civil War one way or another.

 

[Hank Reardon]

If you discuss him at cocktail parties...

WTH sort of parties are you attending where people discuss 19th century justices?

 

[Rockfish1]

WTH sort of parties are you attending where people discuss 19th century justices?

At the parties I go to we normally discuss Millard Fillmore.

 

[Stuffshot]

Taney is certainly one of the very worst. If you discuss him at cocktail parties, make sure to get his last name right (TAW-nee).

Back in the day Butler let me teach a constitutional history class for a couple of semesters, and Dred Scott v. Sanford was fun to teach. After we talked about whether it was reprehensible (yes), I tasked students to tell me whether and how its constitutional analysis was incorrect. This is a much harder question than anyone would like to think. (Slave interests really loaded up the Constitution.)

My own take is that, like James Buchanan and Andrew Johnson, Roger Taney was among the mediocrities who held too many positions of power at a fateful time, but there was going to be a Civil War one way or another.

Rockfish, you dodged the question. What supreme court justice was worse than Taney?

 

[Cajun54]

@Cajun54 time to take out the trash.

Just got online today after being offline a week for moving as I recently sold my place. Trying to catch up here starting this afternoon. I took out a lot of trash in this thread moments ago and gave 3 posters a short vacation in hopes they might improve their style. Time will tell

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Just got online today after being offline a week for moving as I recently sold my place. Trying to catch up here starting this afternoon. I took out a lot of trash in this thread moments ago and gave 3 posters a short vacation in hopes they might improve their style. Time will tell

Hope the new locale works out for you. As you read some of the crap on here the past few days, I hope you appreciate my restraint as moderator emeritus.

 

[zeke4ahs]

View embedded media

Joe's a "no". Will kick in some more $$ for him

I thanked him and sent in money for him today also. Phone banking next week.

 

[Jeb MT Mater]

I don't know, I would consider myself a moderate in most respects. Take abortion, I have no strong sense on abortion. I generally accept that there is a right for a person to choose a medical procedure that is best for them, yet I generally accept the government has some powers in such issues (we don't allow a lot of medical treatments because they are deemed unsafe). So I am willing to accept a lot of compromise on the issue.

Healthcare, the current system sucks. I'd love Medicare for all but I'm willing to go just about anywhere. Some conservatives love Singapore, fine, I'll take that. Not my first choice.

Heck, in one of the threads here I said I'd abstain on Kavanaugh. Find a more moderate position than that one anywhere.

For a long time, until maybe 2012, I was a full on Harry Truman Democratic hawk. Which is a far cry from most of the Democratic Party.

See, we can't even agree on what moderate is. I see people I think I could work with, Ranger, Twenty, Aloha are all Republicans or former Republicans I am certain I could compromise with on most issues. But here is the catch to that, Aloha is going to vote for someone like Kasich for president and there is very little chance the Democrats would select someone I would like less than Kasich. And even if a moderate Democrat won the primary, I doubt Aloha would like them more than Kasich.

There are not a lot of people who would say "Yes, I will vote for a moderate of the other wing over a mainstream of my wing". If they exist, why are they in the wing they claim to be in?

Amy Klobuchar is not an independent but she gets it as a liberal:

It’s easy to dismiss “Minnesota nice” as an overly broad stereotype, but Klobuchar has in many ways turned it into her political brand. Local political observers say she has built a strong one by focusing on less-divisive issues and emphasizing bipartisanship and coming together.​