A political right to choose the highest judicial officers i the land?

What an indescribably f**ked up system. Give us strength from this stupidity.

No one should be at all concerned by the appointment of a judge. They should only need to be concerned that the system is uncorrectable and free from political interference and the office free of politicisation.

No it f*ckin isn't.

It's the point at which political control of the Executive and the Legislature has to align. It does now. It likely will not in a few months. Derailment of Kav is intended to fundamentally restrict the GOP by moving the appointment process into a different political enviroment.

The question facing the senate is: against what standard of proof should that be allowed to happen?

Well, take it up with the "Living Constitution" mob. I for one welcome you to the dark side of judicial restraint.

Yo! Anti-Trumpers! Check this out it goes a little something like this:

Trump takes the credit when the Stock Market goes up, blames the FED when it goes down . All the while conveniently forgetting his ego driven trade wars are the reason for the voliatility

This is such an important point. This means so much to the Dems as they 'activated' the court. Having done so, and profited it from it for decades, they are about to lose it, and this is sending them mental.

Take credit for everything good, even when it defies logic. Deny, deny, deny and accept no responsibility for anything bad. It's a simple but depressingly effective playbook.

It is a major weapon they lose. It was used to neutralise bi-partisan legislative authority, pass by majorities and neuter republican values.

Trump is slowly but surely making history, MAGA.

Elections have consequences, I’m sure someone said that earlier.

If it makes you feel better, Kav was an infinitely more bi-cameral decison than Obamacare.

He paid for that remark it seems.

I get Ted’s view, for Kiwis judges have historically had a very limited and disciplined role (highlighted and questioned by CJ Elias recently). Add to that the different expectations about how lawyers are expected to emote in advocacy and elected judiciary at lower levels and the system is very different here.

If that was a criminal investigation, which it is not, firstly the investigators are hardly likely to make that sort of information public, and secondly, in a civilised country the details of the files are likely to be suppressed if the case proceeds to a trial. None of that prevents the investigators doing their job. Why on earth is it you think that untrained politicians should investigate things that require specialised knowledge and most of all, tact and circumspection?

Not for a judge appointed for life, nor necessarily the appointees.

It did for Kennedy, he felt able to retire.

Trivia point, Kennedy and Gorsuch are the first time that a former clerk has joined his or her Justice on the court. Kavanaugh is another former clerk of Kennedy.

I remember the phrase 'judicial activism' a lot in the 90s. A quick search found this article on the tensions between Clark and Ellis: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/arti ... d=10117146

Some of these NZ judges are so laughingly grand and pompous it takes the breath away. I think it's a function of the small economy, so there's not a landed or industrial class over the top of them. They prance around like courtiers in a Medici court. Although Ellis married Hugh Fletcher, which is about the closest to it, which made her even more insufferable.

Elias has been our Chief Justice since 1999. When are we kicking her to the long grass?

She has less than six months left.

What's the process for that? Do they get 20 years?

Mandatory retirement at 70 IIRC

Have any previous presidents had the power to appoint SC judges for life or is it just Trump?

Absolute nonsense.

It may have been an unedifying spectacle, but the whole process was to assess his suitability for the job.

Dr Ford felt that she had good reason to believe that he wasn't suitable for the job, and frankly, I think it helps no one to have an attempted rapist on the bench of the Supreme Court. Apart from other rapists, of course.

Kavanaugh may have suffered damage to his reputation and this is regrettable, but as it's only a job interview, he won't be going to prison for attempted rape, either.

If he had defended himself in a measured and composed way, if he had declared himself open to an FBI investigation, if he hadn't directly contradicted his own hand-drawn calendar, then I would venture to suggest that his reputation would probably not have suffered quite as much as it has.

Is that the bit when he was foaming at the mouth about what goes around comes around?

It might be how he pronounces 'Gulag'.

Two schools of thought, the first that only Trump could and would wield such power, and then there's reality

In other news - Melania Trump is the most bullied person in the world, or at least in the top 10...



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45818267

And you're bulling her right now.

Melania is a bored member?

It is as if a precedent had already been established. Let's call it the Merrick rule.

The Merrick Rule involves saving an uncorroborated rape allegation until late in the confirmation process in order to force the appointment in a new political environment?

You seem confused. You are making a statement not asking a question.

No I'm trying to work out what it involves. Can you expand?

You think you asked a question? Fück me.

And, you are not trying to work out what it involves. You seem to have made up your mind. Here's a question for you, why add the language "uncorroborated rape allegation" do you have a particular event in mind?

You're struggling. Let me help.

The Merrick Rule involves shifting the appointment process from any political environment to a different one for any reason at all.

Is that an accurate formulation of your rule?

That's got to be it because it's the only formulation that covers the different situations where:

A. a misaligned (with the president) legislature uses its granted powers to shift the appointment process

And B. The subordinate power in an otherwise aligned (with the president) legislature uses an uncorroborated rape allegation to shift the appointment process.

Those seems like equivalent situations that can reasonably be covered by a single very witty rule.

Avoiding my question by asking your own. Interesting approach.

To answer your question. No

Please formulate it.

There you go again with that statement. Who alleged they were raped?

Ah. That's all you've got.

Ok. Insert the word 'attempted'. I'm sure that will change everything.