Amy Coney Barrett

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by HDL66

I am so over the histrionics of the progressive left. So, was it precedented when that paragon of virtue, Chappaquiddick Ted, led the charge to derail Robert Bork and coined a brand-new verb: Borking?

Taking your grievances one-by-one, I think you are correct in observing that the Bork nomination changed the character of Supreme Court appointments in that the Senate's advice and consent became consequential.

As far as attacking Ted Kennedy as a "paragon of virtue," the conservative support for the current President tells me that character doesn't actually matter to any conservative, so I'm not sure how you think that attack lands.

As far as Bork goes, he represented a danger to the entire concept of substantial due process which underlies many of the liberties we now consider today to be fundamental. He also expressed in earlier legal writings that the First Amendment protected political speech only and that academic speech or any other kind of speech was not protected.

His appointement, much like ACB's appointment was an attempt to shift the Court and unravel decades of law. It's just that back then, the GOP didn't have the votes. I don't think either side, especially today is going to lay down and allow the other side to rack up points.

And if the reason you raise this issue is to complain that "they started it," that's about as convincing as my 5-year-old justifying out-of-line playground behavior.

[quote]Was it precedented and respectable when the media and the left went bonkers on a totally unsubstantiated charge against Judge Kavanaugh?

"Totally unsubstantiated" isn't accurate. "Poorly substantiated" would do. And yes, both sides have demonstrated a lack of understanding at how they would be viewed historically. I don't really understand the Democrats' strategy in this one in that had Kavanaugh's confirmation failed, Trump would just appoint someone else with substantially the same views to fill the seat. There may be some allowance for 'fog of war' type of decisions, but in retrospect, the better play would have been to just get out of the way and do as little damage to themselves as they could.

Was it precedented when Harry Reid invoked the nuclear option to approve judicial nominations? (Oh I know, it didn’t apply to SCOTUS, since they didn’t need it at that time. Don’t kid yourself, they would have included that in a New York minute if it had suited their ends.)

Now you're definitely guilty of only complaining about one side of the equation. Harry Reid had the votes and McConnell had blocked every single Obama nominee including a Republican Secretary of Defens nominee. McConnell's abuse of the filibuster in this case was what was historically out-of-line. Never before had it been used to such an extent. If Obama was to have a presidency, which is something McConnell didnt' hide that it was his objective to deprive Obama of that, Reid did what he had to do.

This is the same Harry Reid who blatantly lied about Mitt Romney’s taxes on the floor of the Senate, and when asked about it after the election said with a smirk, “I don’t regret that at all. Romney didn’t win, did he?”

Again, since I assume you support Donald Trump's candidacy and Trump has repeatedly lied and obfuscated about his own taxes, I don't think this punch lands.

Spare me the self-righteous preaching. The left has historically been full of political power plays. It’s just that they are taken by surprise when the right decides to fight back in kind.

And as I've said, the GOP shouldn't be surprised when the Dems to the next logical thing and, assuming tomorrow goes their way, go ahead and reform the Court.

I'm hopeful that if they do so, they leave us with a balanced Court, and hopefully a bipartisan framework to put a halt to these political power plays. I definitely won't hold my breath though.