Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Defending Brett Kavanaugh

Jump to new
IFocus said:
The Supreme Court nominations changes was under Trump 2017
Click to expand...
Na dems did it after gop thought about it.


But for the vast majority of American history, nominees for nation's highest court effectively needed at least 60 votes, which often required some bipartisan support for the president's pick. Otherwise, a filibuster could hold up a nomination indefinitely.


So what happened? How did we go from 60 votes to 51?

Enter the "nuclear option"
It wasn't just Supreme Court nominees who needed 60 votes – federal judges and cabinet secretaries needed them as well.

But this arrangement had always been profoundly irritating to the party in power, particularly given the political polarization of recent decades. Time and time again, the party in control of the Senate and White House saw their selections for powerful positions filibustered by their opponents in the minority.

Under President George W. Bush, however, Republicans began toying with a way to get around the filibuster: a simple change to the Senate rules, which required just 51 votes, that would allow judicial nominees to pass with a simple majority.

In 2003, the GOP controlled the White House and had the same 51-vote majority in the Senate they have today. But Democrats had begun filibustering a number of Bush's judicial nominees, which Republicans saw as an affront to their agenda.


So Senate Republicans began toying around with an idea they called "the Hulk," a secret plan to remove the 60-vote threshold via a rule change. But it was the former Republican leader, Mississippi Sen. Trent Lott, who reportedly gave it the name that stuck:"the nuclear option."

Did they use the nuclear option?
No. Republicans increased their Senate majority in the 2004 elections and the nuclear option was largely taken off the table. However, in 2013, Democrats were in charge of the Senate and White House, and it was the minority Republicans who were filibustering their judicial picks en masse.

So the Democratic Senate Majority Leader, Nevada's Harry Reid, decided to pull the trigger. The nuclear option was implemented for the first time, and the Senate rules were changed so nominees for cabinet posts and federal judgeships could be confirmed with just 51 votes. Republicans cried foul, despite threatening the nuclear option in the past, and Democrats who had been opposed to such a rule change quickly changed their tune. Then-Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said at the time, "You'll regret this, and you may regret this a lot sooner than you think."
Click to expand...
 
Junior said:
I find it curious, this habit of jumping to the defence of a man who has been accused of sexual assault..... Yes, in some cases perhaps the man is innocent, but in most they are not, or the allegations would not exist in the first place. Surely there's better causes out there to be passionate about?

I guess the Trump-loving herd will do his bidding without question.
Click to expand...

The thread title is "Defending Brett Kavanagh". So those defending are on topic. Those against him are off topic.
 
Well at last a Woman calling it as it is, those with pitchforks will tie her to the stake. :D

https://thewest.com.au/opinion/gemma-tognini/ceasefire-time-in-the-war-on-men-ng-b88985494z

From the article:
What the world has watched play out over the past couple of months was a powerful and, granted, extreme example of this war, the primary weapon in which is demonising men about everything and for everything. It can’t be dismissed as falling into the bucket of “only in America” — the rot has taken root here, like larvae squirming their way through rotten fruit.

You can see it in every attempt to dismiss a male perspective. In the attempt to normalise the denial of natural justice over serious allegations such as rape and abuse — where a woman can make any claim she likes about a man and expect to be believed solely because she is a woman.

WOW, I'm glad a bloke didn't write that.;)
 
We'll have to start a thread "Defending Gemma Tognini", Homer.

Daisy Cousins made a great vid on the same topic, so Gemma ia not alone.

 
moXJO said:
Na dems did it after gop thought about it.
Click to expand...

Nope, Supreme Court 2017 under Trump, your quote is for filler buster and the below statement note federal judgeships isn't the Supreme Court, still no moral high ground here for either side.

"The nuclear option was implemented for the first time, and the Senate rules were changed so nominees for cabinet posts and federal judgeships could be confirmed with just 51 votes."
 
IFocus said:
Nope, Supreme Court 2017 under Trump, your quote is for filler buster and the below statement note federal judgeships isn't the Supreme Court, still no moral high ground here for either side.

"The nuclear option was implemented for the first time, and the Senate rules were changed so nominees for cabinet posts and federal judgeships could be confirmed with just 51 votes."
Click to expand...
Ahh so it was noted under bush

51 vote implemented under dems.

But gop was the first to use it for a judge nomination.

Thats what your saying?
 
SirRumpole said:
I think we should be more concerned about the 50 or so women killed in Australia each year by their partners or ex partners instead of what silly old Brett Kavanaugh allegedly did 35 years ago and that his alleged victim waited that long to say anything.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-...ls-extent-of-domestic-violence-crisis/9492026
Click to expand...
Mens mental health seems to be a problem out of control that doesn't really rally much support.
We see all these rallies to stop men killing women and watch and wonder why the rate keeps ticking up. Imo they are throwing money at the wrong area.
Men with mental health problems will not respond to a situation in a normal fashion.

I think there were about 2350 male suicides last year. Thats a huge amount. Wait for a recession and that number will explode.

I think violent crime has been dropping over the years, not sure if its still the case?

I'm seeing a lot of young men today not only weaker, but clueless as to where they stand and how to act in society.

It needs more attention then what its been getting. Or we are in for bigger problems in the long run.
 
Interesting, published by Mish, written by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard.

Twenty-three years ago I crossed swords with a younger Brett Kavanaugh in one of the weirdest and most disturbing episodes of my career as a journalist.

What happened leaves me in no doubt that he lacks judicial character and is unfit to serve on the US Supreme Court for the next thirty years or more, whatever his political ideology.

a long article follows concluding with:

Mr Kavanaugh went on to write the Starr Report on the Foster death. But Mr Knowlton got the last word, literally. He filed a 511-page report at the US Federal Court with evidence alleging a pattern of skullduggery, and asked that it be attached to the Starr Report.

The three top judges did not agree but they ordered that a shorter 20-page version be attached at the end, despite vehement protest from the Starr office. This had never happened before in the history of the office of the independent council.

This summary asserts that the FBI had “concealed the true facts”, that there had been witness tampering, and that the report had wilfully ignored facts that refuted its own conclusions. There it sits in perpetuity, a strange rebuke for Mr Kavanaugh by his own fellow judges on the federal bench.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/sinister-battle-brett-kavanaugh-over-202425923.html
 
Knobby22 said:
Interesting, published by Mish, written by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard.

Twenty-three years ago I crossed swords with a younger Brett Kavanaugh in one of the weirdest and most disturbing episodes of my career as a journalist.

What happened leaves me in no doubt that he lacks judicial character and is unfit to serve on the US Supreme Court for the next thirty years or more, whatever his political ideology.

a long article follows concluding with:

Mr Kavanaugh went on to write the Starr Report on the Foster death. But Mr Knowlton got the last word, literally. He filed a 511-page report at the US Federal Court with evidence alleging a pattern of skullduggery, and asked that it be attached to the Starr Report.

The three top judges did not agree but they ordered that a shorter 20-page version be attached at the end, despite vehement protest from the Starr office. This had never happened before in the history of the office of the independent council.

This summary asserts that the FBI had “concealed the true facts”, that there had been witness tampering, and that the report had wilfully ignored facts that refuted its own conclusions. There it sits in perpetuity, a strange rebuke for Mr Kavanaugh by his own fellow judges on the federal bench.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/sinister-battle-brett-kavanaugh-over-202425923.html
Click to expand...


Any detail on what they crossed swords on or with?
 
Knobby22 said:
If you go to the link it's quite detailed. it seems that the investigation was corrupted.
Click to expand...

It's like reading a tome. Was hoping the writer revealed the specifics of the crossed swords in his essay.
 
Ambrose does have a narrative to push, fwiw.

Good writer, but very biased.
 
This is what should have been looked at though. Not what he did as a dumb 17 year old in the Porkys, Animal House era.
 

Similar threads

bigdog
Bill Shorten: High Flying Fake Or The Worker's Friend
Replies
5
Views
2K
Investoradam
Investoradam
gav
Banks Brace for a Storm of Litigation
Replies
5
Views
4K
mullokintyre
mullokintyre
Top