|
qkkl posted:Going back to the nomination process, is there a single individual who has the power to call for a Senate vote on a SCOTUS nominee? I don't fully understand how the actual vote gets called. Grassley can do whatever the gently caress he wants to since he's the head of the Senate Judiciary Committee and the majority Republican members will support him. (This is the current vote scheduled for Friday, I dont believe the full Senate vote has been scheduled yet)
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2018 19:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 01:32 |
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Petition to rename thread " . . . A screaming penis powered by alcohol alone" You asking for Roberts Rules of Order on this?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2018 19:13
|
|
|
Could the Vice President force a vote for a SCOTUS nominee since they are considered to be the President of the Senate according to the Constitution?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2018 19:21
|
|
|
qkkl posted:Going back to the nomination process, is there a single individual who has the power to call for a Senate vote on a SCOTUS nominee? I don't fully understand how the actual vote gets called. The majority leader is the sole authority over what hits the floor of the Senate and when. Traditionally, nominations get checked over by the Judiciary Committee first, and will only advance to the overall Senate once the Judiciary Committee has decided whether or not to give the candidate their seal of approval. Note that the Judiciary Committee's approval isn't actually required - it's just a recommendation, and does not exert any actual power over the Senate's vote.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2018 19:35
|
|
|
Piell posted:Grassley can do whatever the gently caress he wants to since he's the head of the Senate Judiciary Committee and the majority Republican members will support him. (This is the current vote scheduled for Friday, I dont believe the full Senate vote has been scheduled yet) While it hasn't been scheduled, senators have been asked to stay in Washington anticipating a Saturday vote in the full Senate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2018 19:36
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:You asking for Roberts Rules of Order on this? I second Hieronymous Alloy's motion.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2018 19:47
|
|
|
qkkl posted:Could the Vice President force a vote for a SCOTUS nominee since they are considered to be the President of the Senate according to the Constitution? The rules of the senate only give the President of the Senate the power to cast tie-breaking votes. The majority leader has sole control of the calendar, though technically either unanimous agreement to bring a vote to floor or a majority vote to agree to vote are required before a vote can occur.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2018 19:49
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The majority leader is the sole authority over what hits the floor of the Senate and when. Traditionally, nominations get checked over by the Judiciary Committee first, and will only advance to the overall Senate once the Judiciary Committee has decided whether or not to give the candidate their seal of approval. Note that the Judiciary Committee's approval isn't actually required - it's just a recommendation, and does not exert any actual power over the Senate's vote. This is sort of true, but sort of not in this particular instance. Judiciary usually gets judicial nominees referred to them, and then they report them back to the Senate as a whole. That report's outcome (positive or negative) has no formal impact on the vote in the full Senate. It is possible for the majority leader to avoid the referral in the first place, but that's not what happened here. Kavanaugh's nomination has already been referred to Judiciary, which means that it isn't properly before the Senate as a whole and the majority leader can't call it up (without changing Senate rules) unless he uses a discharge petition. IIRC, Senate discharge petitions are majority vote, so the practical impact here is putting an additional vote and some additional delay in the way of consideration if Judiciary decides to keep considering the matter and not report him out (positively or negatively).
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2018 20:47
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Petition to rename thread " . . . A screaming penis powered by alcohol alone" That would be a good title if this thread was talking about Kavanagh's sex pestery. Which it's not for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2018 00:48
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:That would be a good title if this thread was talking about Kavanagh's sex pestery. Which it's not for some reason. a collective hope that if we don't talk about him in the context of this thread for people who are actually on the Supreme Court that we will force the universe to keep him off of the court by sheer will
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2018 02:52
|
|
|
Kavanaugh is loving melting down right now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2018 20:23
|
|
|
If the Clintons had actually set him up, it would be the most worthwhile thing they've done in decades
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2018 20:42
|
|
|
therobit posted:Kavanaugh is loving melting down right now. Let's get one thing perfectly clear: Brett does NOT gently caress, and it's probably because he didn't have any sisters. What? Why is everyone looking at me like that?
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2018 20:55
|
|
|
let me be clear: if any of my family members attempts to rape a girl and then lies about it, i would not want them on the supreme court, or indeed any court
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2018 20:55
|
|
|
DC Murderverse posted:let me be clear:
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2018 21:23
|
|
|
I wonder if any Supreme Court justices watched the hearings today
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 00:52
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:I wonder if any Supreme Court justices watched the hearings today I was specifically thinking about John Roberts watching that Kavanaugh performance.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 01:01
|
|
|
It was today that Kavanaugh truly became presidential. "the libs." Holy christ. "rue the day". Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 04:56 on Sep 28, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 02:08
|
|
|
Papercut posted:I was specifically thinking about John Roberts watching that Kavanaugh performance. I'd have paid good money to watch Justice Kennedy watching his deal go sour.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 04:21
|
|
|
therobit posted:Kavanaugh is loving melting down right now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 05:32
|
|
|
Shame that he's still going to get appointed if he doesn't withdraw (he won't) because the Republicans absolutely will not give up and just nominate one of their other ALEC-approved right wing judicial shitlords who'd peobably sail through by virtue of not being Kavanaugh.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 05:39
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Shame that he's still going to get appointed if he doesn't withdraw (he won't) because the Republicans absolutely will not give up and just nominate one of their other ALEC-approved right wing judicial shitlords who'd peobably sail through by virtue of not being Kavanaugh. I won't disagree with your overall sentiment, but Kavanaugh was pretty much the least popular nominee of the last 40 years before the sexmonster stuff, and that was largely based on his right-wing and anti-roe bent. The next shitlord probably won't be much better, even if they get a few brownie points for not being Kavanaugh. Regardless, they'll no doubt get someone in before January.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 05:43
|
|
|
What's the recovery time on an appendectomy? Dan Sullivan just had one today. Might be relevant given they are planning the first procedural vote on the floor for Saturday.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 06:19
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:What's the recovery time on an appendectomy? Depends on the circumstances of the appendectomy since ruptured means there's probably an infection they want to keep an eye on, but otherwise I think it's usually laparoscopic these days and not too long?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 07:33
|
|
|
Stickman posted:I won't disagree with your overall sentiment, but Kavanaugh was pretty much the least popular nominee of the last 40 years before the sexmonster stuff, and that was largely based on his right-wing and anti-roe bent. The next shitlord probably won't be much better, even if they get a few brownie points for not being Kavanaugh. Regardless, they'll no doubt get someone in before January.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 10:00
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Shame that he's still going to get appointed if he doesn't withdraw (he won't) because the Republicans absolutely will not give up and just nominate one of their other ALEC-approved right wing judicial shitlords who'd peobably sail through by virtue of not being Kavanaugh.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 13:45
|
|
|
I don’t know to what extent it would even affect anything, but the courts general image is going to be such trash upon a Kavanaugh appointment.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 15:27
|
|
|
I mean, Clarence Thomas doesn't have to care if you think he sexually harrassed a woman decades ago, nor if you think he's asleep
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 15:34
|
|
|
So It Goes posted:I don’t know to what extent it would even affect anything, but the courts general image is going to be such trash upon a Kavanaugh appointment.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 15:36
|
|
|
It may make it politically feasible, but they're still too worried about  to actually do it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 15:46
|
|
|
I've got a question: does anyone think it's a little fishy that this lady that was sexually assaulted in the 80s only comes out of the woodwork now that it's convenient for the Dems? I mean, if this guy assaulted her in the 80's why didn't she go to the police in the 80's? I don't want to victim blame, and I get that a lot of sexual assault victims don't come forward because they are afraid, etc, but this thing seems way to convenient. Kavanaugh has been a major political player for a while now, but you didn't see this fuss start until Trump is president. It feels like a smear on a guy just because he's backed by Donald Trump. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 15:53
|
|
|
Source your quotes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 15:55
|
|
|
celewign posted:I've got a question: does anyone think it's a little fishy that this lady that was sexually assaulted in the 80s only comes out of the woodwork now that it's convenient for the Dems? I mean, if this guy assaulted her in the 80's why didn't she go to the police in the 80's? Millions of people don't believe her in 2018 when we're in the era of Me Too and she's a psychology professor. Absolutely no one would have believed her as a teenager in the 1980s.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 15:55
|
|
|
If you're not trolling you should probably read that new yorker article about the social circles around these private elite prep schools. If she had reported this at the time shes the only one that would've gotten in trouble for it. Even today shes likely to be the only person to have consequences!
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 15:56
|
|
|
If you and I were involved in a drug deal in the 70s that went bad and I wound up stabbing you, would you try to find me immediately after recovering, or would you try to lay low and build a normal life?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 15:56
|
|
|
celewign posted:I've got a question: does anyone think it's a little fishy that this lady that was sexually assaulted in the 80s only comes out of the woodwork now that it's convenient for the Dems? I mean, if this guy assaulted her in the 80's why didn't she go to the police in the 80's? gently caress off with your rape apologism and victim blaming
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 15:59
|
|
|
celewign posted:I mean, if this guy assaulted her in the 80's why didn't she go to the police in the 80's? Kavanaugh's mother was an assistant state's attorney.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 15:59
|
|
|
If you were in possession of intimate knowledge of a man's character that in your opinion specifically disqualified him for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, when exactly would you decide to come forward about it? Presumably at a time when it stood a reasonable chance of preventing his appointment, right? Why is this fishy?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 16:00
|
|
|
celewign posted:I've got a question: does anyone think it's a little fishy that this lady that was sexually assaulted in the 80s only comes out of the woodwork now that it's convenient for the Dems? I mean, if this guy assaulted her in the 80's why didn't she go to the police in the 80's? There's a bit of a difference between "being a major political player" and "being one of the nine people who will decide what the law of the land is for generations to come". Ford probably felt she had to speak out and not let a literal rapist decide whether women get to legally have abortions or not. Notice how there were no such accusations when Gorsuch was nominated. Trump has nominated a terrible candidate just because Kavanaugh said "a sitting president cannot be indicted". The GOP is 100% regretting this nomination, but can't do poo poo except push forward with the confirmation because if they have to start over with another candidate they won't get it done before the midterms recess, and then there's a chance they could lose control of the senate and therefore no more lovely Trumpist judges for them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 16:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 01:32 |
|
|
celewign posted:I've got a question: does anyone think it's a little fishy that this lady that was sexually assaulted in the 80s only comes out of the woodwork now that it's convenient for the Dems? I mean, if this guy assaulted her in the 80's why didn't she go to the police in the 80's? quote:I don't want to victim blame, 
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 16:04
|
|
