Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[smjjames]

Impeachment probably. That's what West Virginia did to their state supreme court justices.

editwhiletyping: Did a quick google and only one actually went to impeachment hearings (WAY back in the early 19th century), though that one was politically motivated and he got acquitted, and another in the 1960's resigned over the threat of being impeached.

And apparently chatter about impeaching a Justice gets thrown around a lot, even heard chatter a while ago about impeaching Justice Clarence Thomas (for the Anita Hill stuff).

SCOTUS justice (or any judge) seems to be as able to be charged, indicted, etc., as anyone. The specifics of their position makes it fairly unlikely they'll (have the time alone to) do something criminal, but that's about it.

So far as cases that involve a personal stake, I seem to recall a justice is required to recuse themselves from the case. Could swear that actually happened fairly recently with something fairly high stakes, even. An actual conviction might not automatically mean they lose the position, but it's stupidly strong impetus for an impeachment.

E: 'Course, the GOP being what it is, if the guy was confirmed first they probably would stall an impeachment if he was subsequently filmed diddling children, but a criminal conviction of some sort would make it pretty damn unlikely he served until willing retirement a decade or three out.

I don't remember any SCOTUS Justice recusing themselves with something that happened fairly recently with pretty high stakes.

Speaking of recusing themselves with something of high stakes, if anything Trump-Russia related gets to the SC, Kavanaugh BETTER recuse himself because it's pretty clear that Trump chose him because he wants him to rule things in Trumps favor if anything Trump-Russia. There is simply no way that he could reasonably be impartial.

Though I guess the same MIGHT go for Gorsuch, though I don't know what his views on executive power and whether the President can be indicted and all that.

[Lord Shonus]

I don't remember any SCOTUS Justice recusing themselves with something that happened fairly recently with pretty high stakes.

Alito, Roberts, and guy-who-never-seems-to-matter have recused themselves a lot in the past few years because one party was a company they held stock in.

[misko27]

Still, it's an interesting situation. It doesn't seem likely to derail Kavanaugh's nomination, but it's also the first thing to arise that actually could derail it, whereas up until now Democrats have been stalling for time purely for spite.

What WOULD happen if he's allowed into the SC and then accused of a crime? Could he essentially pardon himself? They're the head of the whole judicial system, though, so really, how would things play out if enough people become convinced he really did it?

That's not how the Supreme Court works. The Supreme Court derives its authority from the Constitution and interpretation thereof. It doesn't actually lead anything, it has senior authority over the interpretation of the law, but that's only if a case gets to them in the first place.

Besides, a Supreme Court member on their own can barely do much of anything.

[Frumple]

I'unno, the I-can't-believe-it's-not-perjury thing probably counts as more than just spite, just off the top of my head. Probably a good chunk I'm forgetting. Abet-obstruction-for-me-kun isn't exactly the world's most stellar SCOTUS nom, not that republicans give a flying fuck about silly things like that at this point.

[smjjames]

Still, it's an interesting situation. It doesn't seem likely to derail Kavanaugh's nomination, but it's also the first thing to arise that actually could derail it, whereas up until now Democrats have been stalling for time purely for spite.

Pfft, the Republicans did the same to Obama over Garland despite him being a middle-of-the-road compromise pick when Obama could have otherwise nominated a hardcore liberal. Not to mention how the Republicans are trying to rush the Kavanaugh confirmation and are witholding documents, so, they are within their rights to delay it. I don't see it as being 'out of spite'. Sure, they are pulling the 'elections matter' move, but McConnel created that precedent.

Still though, given how tough the Senate map is for the Democrats, 538's Senate forecast predicts status quo btw, delaying it is probably going to be moot anyhow.

[misko27]

I meant spite in the sense of "a valiant, but utterly pointless and thoroughly doomed last stand, pulled off purely to force your enemy to come over and finish you off the hard way." Perhaps I simply have more positive mental connotations for spite then you guys do, being a Serb and all. Delaying tactics for the purpose of delaying towards a specific objective is reasonable. Delaying tactics because you lack any alternative is what I sense you all would call "not going gentle into that good night", or from a slightly different point of view, spite. Glorious, "To the last, I grapple with thee; From Hell's heart, I stab at thee; For hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee" spitefulness. And Democrats, lacking any means to actually stop the nomination, have been running on that for some days now; if you're going to be trodden upon, might as well go out swinging.

I sense their hesitation now is tactical more than anything: they had nothing to lose beforehand, whereas the current situation, where victory is possible (if improbable), requires a tactical reassessment.

[Rowanas]

Perhaps I simply have more positive mental connotations for spite then you guys do, being a Serb and all.

Indeed, Serbs are famous for their cheerful ways and upbeat nature. /s

[Max™]

Pestilence is one of the four horsemen of the apocalypse not because of grasshoppers but because of, you know, the plague. You know, the thing that had the strange tendency to kill essentially everyone.

Either I don't get your humour or what the shit.

My joke is based on the East of West versions of the Horsemen, there's no Pestilence in the group, and Squidbillies made the same joke.

[misko27]

Perhaps I simply have more positive mental connotations for spite then you guys do, being a Serb and all.

Indeed, Serbs are famous for their cheerful ways and upbeat nature. /s

Serbs are in fact famous for being the only people that I know of who'd hear "You sure are a contentious people." and take it as a compliment. It is, in fact, what we do best. Although assassination, mad science, and tennis are occasionally on that list as well.

Anyway, Kavanaugh's accuser has stepped forward. Her name is Christine Ford, and she's a professor of psychology in California, and apparently a reasonably well-respected researcher. Simultaneously, Republican Senators have for the first time expressed a desire to slow down the Kavanaugh confirmation; this has not come from the expected swing votes of Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski, but instead Jeff Flake and Bob Corker, who said the nomination should be delayed in order to hear more about the allegations. Jeff Flake is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and thus can stop it there, while Corker is yet another swing vote who could derail the nomination (Republicans need a majority, which they will lose if Democrats hold strong and even a single Republican defects). It seems possible that Ford may testify in front of the Senate, but it is not clear whether she wants to, or whether Senators will seek her testimonial out.

Sen. Grassley is running the show, and he has expressed a desire to hear out the allegations, but as of now is still holding to the timetable of holding a vote on Kavanaugh on Thursday.

[Lord Shonus]

The details are plausible enough to support that the incident occurred. The other man (and only other potential witness) named in the complaint is a self-admitted recovering alcoholic who spent much of that period blackout drunk, which explains the lack of supporting testimony. Assuming that Mrs. Ford is telling the truth as she remembers it, the only real question is how accurately she identified her attacker.

How fair it is to judge a middle-aged man for something he did as an extremely drunk 17 year old is a reasonable question, but delaying the hearings for investigation and discussion is the proper course. Whatever your opinion on this incident, this is ample ground to look for other problematic behavior from him.

[sluissa]

The details are plausible enough to support that the incident occurred. The other man (and only other potential witness) named in the complaint is a self-admitted recovering alcoholic who spent much of that period blackout drunk, which explains the lack of supporting testimony. Assuming that Mrs. Ford is telling the truth as she remembers it, the only real question is how accurately she identified her attacker.

How fair it is to judge a middle-aged man for something he did as an extremely drunk 17 year old is a reasonable question, but delaying the hearings for investigation and discussion is the proper course. Whatever your opinion on this incident, this is ample ground to look for other problematic behavior from him.

Even if a teenage incident alone wouldn't ruin him, a pattern of lying might.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/brett-kavanaugh-lies-senate-testimony-supreme-court.html

[Lord Shonus]

Certainly, and this allegation can absolutely be a prybar for looking at things like that more carefully. My point was that this incident is as important for "why we should look closer" as it is in and of itself.

[smjjames]

Considering how easily the Republicans are deciding that it needs a closer look, it makes one wonder why Sen. Feinstein sat on it for so long. Also, Lindsey Graham has said that he wants to hear out the accuser as well.

The details are plausible enough to support that the incident occurred. The other man (and only other potential witness) named in the complaint is a self-admitted recovering alcoholic who spent much of that period blackout drunk, which explains the lack of supporting testimony. Assuming that Mrs. Ford is telling the truth as she remembers it, the only real question is how accurately she identified her attacker.

How fair it is to judge a middle-aged man for something he did as an extremely drunk 17 year old is a reasonable question, but delaying the hearings for investigation and discussion is the proper course. Whatever your opinion on this incident, this is ample ground to look for other problematic behavior from him.

Speaking of that classmate of his, Matt Judge, the interesting thing is that he frequently references a 'Bart O'Kavanaugh' in his works, which could plausibly be a pseudonym of Brett Kavanaugh. You'd think being underage drunk would have come up in the various FBI background checks he had over the years for various positions, so, that should be somewhat easily verified.

[Frumple]

A single letter referencing stuff from decades back isn't exactly hard to suss out reasons to sit on for, though. Particularly considering the writer initially wanted anonymity, and the general circumstances we're aware of. Even basic verification would take time, especially if you were trying to protect the victim's identity.

... it is kinda' interesting how stung, so to speak, the GOP have been reacting, though. Makes you wonder what they were expecting to come up regarding kav.

[Frumple]

I'd hold off on that, though. It wouldn't be the first, or even the fiftieth, time a GOP blighter talked one thing and then quietly shut up when it came time for actual follow through.