Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by takyon on Saturday October 06 2018, @08:10PM   Printer-friendly
from the let-'er-rip dept.

Brett Kavanaugh has been confirmed as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. The vote was 50-48 in favor of Kavanaugh.

Senators Collins, Flake, and Manchin had already announced their intentions to confirm Kavanaugh before the vote was held. Senator Lisa Murkowski, who was previously ready to vote "no", agreed to vote "present" instead so that Senator Steve Daines could attend his daughter's wedding instead of being present in the Senate to support Kavanaugh.

SCOTUSBlog: Kavanaugh confirmed as 114th justice
Nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court

Previously: SCOTUS's Justice Anthony Kennedy to Retire
President Trump Nominates Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the US Supreme Court
Trump's Supreme Court Pick: ISPs Have 1st Amendment Right to Block Websites

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 06 2018, @11:20PM (15 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 06 2018, @11:20PM (#745239)

    That just supports my conclusion. The FBI could have interviewed more people, and could have investigated new information about Bart O'Kavanaugh's past. Youthful indiscretions are fine, perjury is not.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +5  
       Interesting=1, Informative=4, Total=5
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 06 2018, @11:36PM (4 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 06 2018, @11:36PM (#745250)

    That just supports my conclusion

    That the FBI are involved in a Republican conspiracy to "cover up" or "whitewash" allegations that supposed witnesses have already publicly stated are bullshit?

    • (Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 06 2018, @11:51PM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 06 2018, @11:51PM (#745256)

      The tweet says nothing about FBI involvement in a conspiracy. The White House dictated who the FBI could or could not talk to. [nytimes.com] People were already worried about that the day before the investigation began.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 07 2018, @12:07AM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 07 2018, @12:07AM (#745265)

        The tweet says nothing about FBI involvement in a conspiracy.

        Is it your reading comprehension or your grasp on reality failing you?

        "I have seen it and I want to re-read parts of it, but my very emphatic opinion is that this set of interviews is at best, most charitably, woefully incomplete. To put it bluntly, it smacks of a whitewash, even a cover up."

        – Sen. Richard Blumenthal

        • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 07 2018, @12:17AM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 07 2018, @12:17AM (#745268)

          Again, the White House decided who the FBI could interview. They were in charge of the whitewash.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 07 2018, @04:16PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 07 2018, @04:16PM (#745544)

            Again, the White House decided who the FBI could interview. They were in charge of the whitewash.

            "The FBI conspired with Republicans to whitewash an investigation".

  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday October 07 2018, @02:22AM (3 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday October 07 2018, @02:22AM (#745320) Journal

    The FBI could have interviewed more people, and could have investigated new information about Bart O'Kavanaugh's past.

    And what would the Fourth Amendment compatible reason for that be?

    • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday October 07 2018, @02:36AM (2 children)

      by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Sunday October 07 2018, @02:36AM (#745327) Homepage Journal

      More importantly, what would the tenth amendment justification for that be?

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 07 2018, @04:35PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 07 2018, @04:35PM (#745548)

        I'm confused by this post. How does the Tenth Amendment come into play here? (Assuming we live in a better, parallel universe where the Ninth and Tenth matter, of course.)

        • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday October 08 2018, @11:44PM

          by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Monday October 08 2018, @11:44PM (#746208) Homepage Journal

          Simple, there is nothing in the constitution giving the federal government the authority to investigate any old crime they care to; their powers are intentionally supposed to be specific and limited. Thus it is a right reserved for the states or the people.

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 07 2018, @01:54PM (5 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 07 2018, @01:54PM (#745484)

    I can't tell if the Democrats bemoaning this truly don't understand the purpose of the FBI (hint: this isn't the kind of crime they're supposed to investigate), or if it's all just posturing.

    Both parties are well beyond the point where you can tell if it's incompetence or malice.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 07 2018, @03:41PM (4 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 07 2018, @03:41PM (#745523)

      They're performing a background investigation. Now we've got a possibly sexual predator and definite perjurer on the high court who is likely to be subject to blackmail and extortion attempts because there wasn't a proper investigation.

      That should scared the shit out of anybody who thinks the court has even the slightest amount of credibility at this point. As somebody has already stated elsewhere, 4 of 9 justices were appointed by Presidents that didn't win the popular vote and if RBG dies this term, that would mean a majority of the justices would be seated by Presidents that most voters did not support.

      That's crazy. Almost as crazy as the fact that we now have somebody who brazenly committed felony perjury on live TV getting one of those seats.

      • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday October 07 2018, @10:55PM (3 children)

        by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Sunday October 07 2018, @10:55PM (#745673) Journal

        The SCOTUS is a glaring weakness in the US government, a place the founding fathers made the mistake of assuming inviolability and absolute neutrality. The way around this is term limits, anywhere from 4-10 years. As it is, lifetime appointments means 1) stuffing the court is any partisan's goal and 2) the SCOTUS can inflict suppurating, infected wounds on the body politic that take 50-100 years to heal.

        --
        I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
        • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 08 2018, @12:59AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 08 2018, @12:59AM (#745747)

          We know. We all saw what Roe v. Wade did.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 08 2018, @08:02AM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 08 2018, @08:02AM (#745862)

          (Don't) Fuck you bitch.

          • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday October 08 2018, @04:24PM

            by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Monday October 08 2018, @04:24PM (#746016) Journal

            What a coherent, nuanced, and wonderfully-reasoned argument! Sorry, but no matter how thirsty you are, only my girlfriend gets to fuck me :) I'm sure you have a sock somewhere you can use or something.

            --
            I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...