Um...He was talking about a hypothetical vacancy. And, who is to say he would have the support of his colleagues to go ahead with that idea? So, it really isn't an apples to apples comparison, now is it?It's just Joe Biden as the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee saying he wouldn't let George Bush Senior appoint a Supreme Court Justice during an election year.
It's also CBS News reporting this in 2016 because we know how much even straight reporting from Fox News bothers you.
Trump On Lex Fridman... Just Dropped
- Thread starter The Oracle
- Start date
The reality is the Senate majority can do whatever it wants with judicial nominees. That is not hypothetical. The Democratic Senate tanked one nominee and tried to tank another in that time period. Of course, the tanked nominee just withdrew his name.
It's not pretty, but unlike many Western nations we in the U.S. get to see how the sausage is made.
Last edited:
Do you prefer a politicized court?
Are you against term limits and strict rules on corruption?
Hypothetical isn’t reality. Let’s realize that they didn’t tank a nominee. As you said, he withdrew. Ever think he’d have a harder nomination than Clarance Thomas?
I believe you were selling Trump signing a "hypothetical" national abortion ban even though he specifically denies he would. So it seems that you have decided what is hypothetical or not?
Incidentally, the Merriam-Webster dictionary lists the verb bork.
borked also Borked; borking also Borking; borks also Borks
transitive verb
US politics, informal: to attack or defeat (a nominee or candidate for public office) unfairly through an organized campaign of harsh public criticism or vilification
Not only is this funny that it's in the dictionary, I kind of knew it would be. That's the advantage of being born in the U.S., living here and having a working knowledge of our politics. I'm not at the mercy of what the media portrays.
Biden was the chief borker.
You don't think rump is a borker?
Interesting.
The media sane washes rump speeches, to try to not only make him look coherent but to try to infer something less nasty out of his rambling. But after last night I don't think you can argue that he isn't pushing for a ban on abortion.
Nobody will commission a poll on "would this make you more or less likely to support candidate X"?
That seems unlikely.
I think there is absolutely evidence it would increase her odds.
What I am complaining about is a confident statement of a 6% increase on something they didn't actually poll directly.
She certainly did succeed in that.
It still wasn't "eventful" but she did beat him pretty handily as he imploded.
Considering, with hindsight, what Clarence Thomas has done....maybe they should have borked his nomination. I mean, the ethical lapses this man has shown over the past 15 years or so is staggering. Could you imagine if a leftist jurist did anything even remotely similar, Fox and the GOP would shit a brick.
But, the reality here is, Biden did NOT withhold a vote on a Bush justice.
I wasn't under the impression she did aggressive questioning of either.
From clips I saw, Vance got upset with her, but that seemed to be more a Vance problem.
She called out Vance for bashing Trump and then had a change of heart later on....Why didn't she call Kamala out on Bidens condition stating he's cognitive and in best shape but then later on, had to remove himself from the presidential race?
It is.
There were norms governing that for some time, but those had been eroding for decades and now it is pure power politics.
Just another reason for court reform.
I don't know who you are referring to, honestly.
Judicial nominations are pretty transparent in Canada - and in many places, I bet.
One of the issues is the structure of the Supreme Court lending itself to this problem.
It depends how you define "Borking".
The definition in the dictionary, since it was how the word was used by the GOP afterwards, is (as Wyatt posted) "to attack or defeat (a nominee or candidate for public office) unfairly through an organized campaign of harsh public criticism or vilification".
Of course, the "unfair" move the Democrats used was to state publicly Bork's positions on things.
(That's considered extremely unfair and uncivil by Republicans.)
So she did the same thing in both interviews, repeat the common wisdom horse race gossip narrative and not ask substantial questions?
but she didn't....she cozied up with Kamala...not with JD...i mean...why not be consistent?
I agree that Biden did not withhold a vote, but made it very difficult for Republican court nominees. Let's say Clarence Thomas wasn't borked. Let's just say he was kavenaughed.
I don't always agree with Clarence Thomas' judicial rulings. If I had to pick one judge, he would not be it. However, popularity is not the Supreme Court's objective.
I see you have been following headline commentary about Justice Thomas. I understand he has some rich and generous friends. This is not unusual for powerful people in Washington. What I have not been able to determine is what Supreme Court decisions were impacted by alleged bias. Perhaps you can enlighten us with specific instances where people suspected decisions were tainted by Thomas' relationships.
How much of that was JD attacking her, though?
Did she start aggressive or did he fuck up the interview?
Ahh, the famous "you can never prove bribery unless you see a sack of money change hands and someone change their vote" theory.
Which is, to be fair, what Clarence Thomas and others on the Supreme Court ruled is required to prove bribery.
How bout a case and a decision? That's all I'm asking.Ahh, the famous "you can never prove bribery unless you see a sack of money change hands and someone change their vote" theory.
In any event, rich people like hanging out with powerful people. They aren't generous hoping they have a dog in the fight and they can sway one vote in the Supreme Court.
I myself think Clarence Thomas' judicial philosophy is fairly predictable almost to the point of mundane. We don't have to like his decisions, but I would be curious to know where people think he deviated from his principles to decide a case in favor of one of his "friends".
I know, and you aren't ever going to get one using the criteria you set out.
There might possibly be hints of something if I dug hard enough, but you will never find anything that will prove Clarence Thomas changed his mind because of who was paying him money.
But this means Clarence Thomas isn't being paid off only if you believe that's the only criteria that matters.
Why on earth would you think that?
He didn't have to.
He complained he wasn't making enough as a judge and should resign.
Then money rolled in to keep him happy where he was.
The money didn't pave the way for new decisions -> his decisions paved the way for the money.
This is corruption in the classical sense the Founders believed. (That Thomas will abandon "originalism" if it means he can't get paid is unsurprising.)
And, of course, Thomas hid all these gifts and stopped disclosing them because he clearly thought it was all above board.
But I happily concede that if the argument you want to go with is "you have to prove a specific instance of him changing his mind based on a payment" then I can't.
