Mitch with the help of the guy Bruce Braley warned us about. Mitch and Chuck, those proud institutionalists who get all weepy eyed over the traditions of the Senate.
Supreme Court leak investigation heats up as clerks are asked for phone records in unprecedented move
- Thread starter biggreydogs
- Start date
I can see it as a remote possibility. I think there's a much better case for getting Roberts to side with the liberals by spurring the kind of protests we saw.
That said, I really hate it when journalists go with sources that aren't reliable. They publish BS because they know it can't be proved or disproved, or people will simple forget what was published and not hold anyone accountable. Have any of those 51 intelligence officials who said the Hunter Biden crap was Russian disinformation been held accountable? I'm usually late to the table with my opinion on a lot of topics because I have severe trust issues, especially when it comes to the US Government.
I don’t understand the theory about liberal judges trying to box in roberts because it would have pointless. Even if he had flipped, roe still gets overturned 5-4.
Probably the simplest explanation is that some clerk saw the draft opinion, and leaked it to give notice that it was coming so people could prepare responses.
Honestly I do hope it was a lone operator. If this was ever found out it was done at the behest of one of the judges, that truly might destroy the SC.
what would harry reid like to tell me? that mitch mcconnell also was the one who got rid of the filibuster for supreme court nominees…
What Reid did with the filibuster is separate for
Mitch blocking a SC nomination for an entire year.
Mitch should have brought Garland up for a vote...would have ended with the same result. Party line vote...
Nope. Started with GOP blocking Clinton nominees and then each Senate went progressively worse.
See I disagree with this. Garland had been approved with a healthy bipartisan majority before, didn’t have any red flags on his resume, and then got confirmed as AG with several Republicans jumping over.
Mitch could block the vote with no blowback, but risked losing the caucus if he held the vote.
Keep telling yourself that. Harry went nuclear. You never go nuclear.
That's the problem with Dems and Libs. You're often guided by/consumed with emotion. Impulsive as ever
You should be thanking Sinema and Manchin from protecting you from yourselves regarding the 60 vote filibuster.
He didn't go nuclear for Supreme Court, that was the cons. And he went nuclear for appellate and trial courts because the GOP sat on nominations, some for more than 3 years.
And if you think a GOP Senate -- which didn't take up a Supreme Court nomination for almost a year and then filled another spot in 3 weeks -- would let a little thing like a filibuster interfere with getting another con on the Supreme Court, you are fooling yourself.
I can just picture the sniffles running down your cheeks when you typed this.
Nah. The record is clear.
St. Louis Hawk already acknowledged that Harry Reid was the first to go nuclear. That decision has led down this path.
I’m sorry you have mistaken me for someone who gives 2 shits what you think.
Of course it didn’t but keep telling that to yourself.
The leak worked, and only a damn fool wouldn't realize that Ginni Thomas was the leaker.
If I had to wager a guess it would be Thomas is the source of the leak.
It clearly came from Thomas or Alito. Those two are feeling very powerful right now, and they want to use that power. Also, it’s been reported that there is long-standing friction between Alito and Roberts. Supposedly Alito thinks he should be Chief Justice being one amongst several reasons for the friction.
What about Robert Bork? The vote was 42-58
Um, no, unlike what McConnell did to Garland’s nomination, the democrats who controlled the Senate gave Bork both a committee vote and a full Senate vote, and he was rejected 42-58, with 6 republicans voting No.
Bork's behavior under Nixon should have precluded him from nomination
Just like anyone tied to the 1/6 insurrection and trying to overturn a legitimate election should be precluded from any judicial appointment or government office.
Unless you're rooting for Rudy G or Sidney P for being the next SC nominee here.
No it didn’t. The Senate held a full recorded floor vote on Bork.
6 republicans voted no on his nomination because he was the guy leading the Saturday Night Massacre.
Are you saying that the Senate has to approve every nominee?
True enough, he did get a vote, but the point is that the acrimony that encompasses Supreme Court nominations and our politics in general started with this outrageous speech by Ted Kennedy after Bork’s nomination was announced:
“Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, and schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists would be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens.”
I realize that this just sounds like Twitter every day now, but believe it or not people didn’t always talk to each other like this.
Here is a NY Times OpEd that makes the same case:
The Ugliness Started With Bork
Bork should never have been allowed anywhere in government after the Saturday Night Massacre. Regardless of what "Ted Kennedy" may have said.
And based on what Bork-Lite Federalists are doing on the Court, Kennedy was probably correct.
Agreed. That’s when it seemed like our public discourse really started to go awry.
Thank you for your response.
Bork received a full Senate vote. His nomination was in bad faith - the man was a participant in the Saturday Night Massacre, back when the cons believed in the rule of law.
Kennedy’s statements, while unnecessarily hyperbolic, are not far off.
“Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions. Conservatives overturned Roe v. Wade.
blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters. Not there yet but conservatives are coming for same sex marriage, for contraception, and next is Loving if you believe the rationale of a certain Supreme Court justice ...
rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids. Conservatives ruled this year to expand qualified immunity and that people whose Miranda rights were violated may not sue.
schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution. Not there yet, but governments have passed laws that certain topics may not be taught.
writers and artists would be censored at the whim of the Government. Governments banned books this year, including a Pulitzer Prize winning novel.
and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens.” Court's Miranda rights ruling this year; and in the past few years, decided that people cannot bring suits for gerrymandering and certain Voter Rights Act claims.
Seems to me that the op-ed writer's claim, which overlooks actual conservative transgressions -- blocking Clinton nominees, blocking Obama nominees, not giving Garland a committee or floor vote, approving ACB in three weeks -- and pins it all on Kennedy's *words,* where Bork received a full Senate vote, is disingenuous at best.
