Sign in to follow this  
Sean

SCOTUS pick today

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, hermetic said:

 

twitter makes you stupid

That would explain Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/13/2018 at 12:13 PM, Raz'r said:

people go where the jobs are.

Lots of jobs in red states like Wisconsin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/gop-rush-scotus-confirmation-despite-164440985.html

what difference does it make. Even if the million docs were available no one is going to read them. Pretty near a Straight  party line vote to confirm.  It is all just very bad theater.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/gop-rush-scotus-confirmation-despite-164440985.html

what difference does it make. Even if the million docs were available no one is going to read them. Pretty near a Straight  party line vote to confirm.  It is all just very bad theater.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AI has been doing document reading for e-discovery for quite some time now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/16/2016 at 10:59 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

 

He seems qualified and a reasonable choice to me. I'm not at all surprised that Obama would nominate someone hostile to the Heller and MacDonald decisions.

 

There are other areas of concern to me

 

 

Count me among those "many progressives" mentioned above.

I was able to reach that conclusion about Garland without reading even a hundred thousand documents about him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"There's going to be an election" was a lame excuse to refuse to consider Garland's nomination.

"The President might be convicted" is another one.
 

Quote

 

...

Democratic Rep. David Cicillin of Rhode Island put it more bluntly: "A President who's also an unindicted co-conspirator should not get to make lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court."

Liberal MSNBC host Chris Hayes made a similar point: "So the Senate is just gonna rush ahead to confirm the president's nominee to the Supreme Court amidst all this? Really?"

If the history of modern judicial confirmation proceedings is any guide, then yes, the Senate really is going to confirm Kavanaugh amidst all this. After all, something similar has happened in the Senate before.

Consider what transpired back in the eventual months of September and October 1998. On September 3, Congress received the so-called Starr report, which, among other things, argued that President Bill Clinton had committed 11 impeachable offenses. A month later, on October 5, the House Judiciary Committee recommended opening an impeachment inquiry into Clinton's actions. On October 8, the House of Representatives officially began its inquiry into Clinton's impeachment.

At the same time that the House Judiciary Committee was weighing the contents of the Starr report, the Senate was weighing the record of a federal district court judge named Sonia Sotomayor, who President Clinton had nominated to a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. On October 3, the Senate confirmed Sotomayor to the federal appellate bench by a vote of 67-29.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this