One, there was some mention of a concern about Elena Kagan’s hearing … should not be disclosed.
Security concerns regarding documentation do not end when presidencies end. As a legislator, you may by all means question the judgement of an Administration that withholds sensitive records, as to just how sensitive those records are, but it shows low character to assume unilaterally that it is being done for political advantage.
But, speaking of Kagan, and relating back to your article title, she most definitely was a nominee where the American people deserved better. She had no judicial experience, almost no courtroom experience, she had/has very little real world experience (having grown up rich on the Upper West Side, private schools, an elite all-girls high school, then on to the Ivy League, then Oxford, then academia. Hence, and unlike Kavanaugh, she did *not* receive the ABA’s highest rating when nominated to the court.
One has difficulty coming to any other conclusion than she was nominated to provide a reliable left-leaning partisan presence on the SCOTUS.
there have been many a political campaign that has been run indicating an intention to use the United States Supreme Court as a political tool to end things like the Affordable Care Act, the Voting Rights Act, and campaign finance reform.
Let’s not quibble here; both sides play this game — in fact, the GOP learned it from Democrats, when back during the Roe days and the Burger Court, the Dems figured out that they didn’t have to settle for a dull compromise if they could get the Court to give them everything they want. Then, the GOP figured out that two can play that game, which now lets Congress off the hook and avoid taking hard votes, because the voters of both parties are willing to make the SCOTUS the scapegoat.
Somehow, it has avoided the notice of America that the we are ceding our hardest decisions to unelected jurists, which is another way of stating that both parties are willingly accepting more authoritarianism at the same time they are expressing fear of it. (But let’s not digress.)
I find it interesting that we get those documents less than 24 hours before this hearing is scheduled to begin, but it took 57 days for those documents to be vetted before we would even be given those documents.
You may indeed find that interesting, but what I find interesting is that Senator Grassley mentioned yesterday that the hundreds of thousands of pages of documents that have been available for over a month have barely been noticed by the Opposition. So, there is some concern here that YOUR concern (about the new 42K pages) is disingenuous; you didn’t bother to read the documents that were already available, so why the sudden extreme interest in this batch?
Further, regarding documents in general, the Oppositions interest in these documents would be more credible had they expressed interest in them PRIOR to declaring their opposition to Kavanaugh, not before. So, optically, it appears to the knowledgeable observer that the Opposition is blowing smoke.
96% of his record is missing. 96% of his record is missing.
Well, you don’t have access to his college term papers, junior high essays, and his scribbles from elementary school, either. So maybe it’s more like 99%. :-)
Point here is that you’re counting pages, which is a trivial exercise that implies (fallaciously) that All Records Are Created Equal. They are not. You have full access to the most important records pertaining to this nomination, which is the 300-odd opinions and dissents authored by Kavanaugh. If that’s not enough to assess his juridical philosophy and outlook, then one wonders what’s in all that other shit that would help or hinder either way.
So, let’s cut to the chase here. You’re not going to vote for Kavanaugh, regardless of what all those emails and notations show. You want them because you’re hoping that in an off the cuff moment, you can seize upon something he wrote that will make your unreasonable opposition seem reasonable.
You can just come out and say it. We all know what game you’re playing, regardless of if we’re friend or foe.
but it should not be the ability of the leadership of this committee to unilaterally make decisions about what we will and will not see in terms of its admissibility, instead of arguing about the weight of whatever is made admissible.
And yet, it is indeed leadership’s ability, one which I have no doubt that Democrats would do the same if the situations were reversed.
The American people deserve better than this.
Actually, we don’t deserve HIM. He has the highest rating from the ABA. His opinions are not infrequently adopted by the SCOTUS in their own rulings. His scholarship is considered to be of the highest order by even his detractors. If the American people got what we deserved, considering the coordinated antics the Democrats put on yesterday, it would be some partisan hack lawyer who has spent his or her career litigating traffic tickets. But, by some oddity of nature, we are fortunate enough to find a person of intellect and integrity who is willing to work for (relatively speaking) pennies instead of racking up millions in the private sector.
Yet that same President is racing to appoint to a lifetime position on the highest court in our land, a court that very well may decide his legal fate.
First off, it’s not “racing” — the Kavanaugh process is neither long nor short by historical precedent. And I’ll remind you that in our legal system, as well as morally, we don’t do guilt by association in this country. The fact that the President is a cad does not reflect upon Kavanaugh. As an attorney, you know full well that if you tried to sully the defendant with his or her associates in a court of law, any decent judge would shut you down.
What I believe guides him and what his record that we’ve been able to see shows, is what guides this nominee is partisanship.
Well. :-) Why didn’t you say so in the first place? Then we could have dispensed with all this nonsense about document production and how important the job is. If you think he’s partisan, than you SHOULDN’T vote for him under any circumstances (even though the GOP permitted Kagan to go through, which was clearly a more partisan choice.)
Would have saved both of us a lot of time had you just cut to the chase, eh?