You're just trolling now. For weeks the narrative was "Ford is a victim who shouldn't be interogated by old white men". Now it's, "Why, Oh Why, is the GOP preventing the FBI from waterboarding her. All we want is the truth".

Does taking things to a ridiculous extreme help rationalize your more petulant arguments?

#

Of all the hot takes floating around about Kav, this is one of the most excruciatingly stupid.

It's clearly not a f*ckin job interview. It's the excercise of of one of the most important political rights that comes with winning a general election. Actually, its probably the most important political consequence of a US election. Millions of people held their noses and voted for Trump purely so the GOP could make this appointment. Equally, millions of people have completely lost their shit about the fact the GOP will make this appointment.

And we get called hysterical

I understand that it's a political right, although it doesn't automatically come with winning an election of course

However, once the nomination has been made, the senate process looks into the fitness of the nominee for the position, which is effectively a glorified job interview.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

He paid for that remark it seems.

Yes. Yes I do think they should be opened up to the general public, as I clearly stated above.

But failing that ideal situation perhaps they could be turned over for private examination by the body that is investigating the allegations. This seems a sensible compromise from my original and quite clear proposal to publicise the records because the allegator has cited them as corroborating evidence.

Alternatively we could go full #metoo and a) believe the initial allegation because she made it and she's a woman, and b) believe her summary of the independent associated evidence because she's a woman.

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

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

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.

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

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

She has less than six months left.

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.

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?

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

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

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

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.

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?

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'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?

Avoiding my question by asking your own. Interesting approach.

To answer your question. No

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.

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