What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[garbon]

Didn't he say something like what goes around comes around?

Also can you get any cheaper and more insincere than sobbing and telling how your little sweet daughter told you to pray for your accuser.

Nauseating. I don't know if he wa the one tryring to rape this woman, I don't think he is any more certain than I am, but he came across as a major douche and a horrible character

Umm, but he went to Yale and he likes beer* and is a champion of women.

*do you like beer by the way?

[Syt]

[jimmy olsen]

This entry on Kavanaugh's calendar matches up with Ford's testimony

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/brett-kavanaughs-calendar-for-july-1-1982-go-to-timmys-for-skis-with-judge.html

[jimmy olsen]

Flake will vote for Kavanaugh and no one is surprised.

Unlike John McCain, Flake talks the talk, but never walks the walk. 100% of the time.

[The Minsky Moment]

Conservative opinion seems to be of the exact opposite view.  National Reviews Rich Lowry had this to say on Kavanaugh's opening statement:

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/brett-kavanaughs-opening-statement/

It was tremendous, a rhetorical tour de force. It was personal, detailed, persuasive, and moving. A lot of commentary is focusing on his anger — but if he's innocent, he has every right to be furious, indeed should be furious. I thought a major difficulty for him from the session earlier in the day is that Republicans didn't really raise questions about the credibility of Dr. Ford's account, leaving it to him to try to do it — a very delicate task. But he managed to buttress his credibility and question hers, without seeming nasty or dismissive. Indeed, one of the most moving moments was when he said that his daughter suggested praying for Ford. The opening helped him immensely. If nothing else, he held nothing back. Well done.

Anger is one thing, partisan conspiracy-mongering is another.

I don't doubt his opening helped him with the people who already were supporting him no matter what.

[Barrister]

Also, Gorsuch was relatively easily waved through. So if this one is causing such intense pushback, maybe they should take the hint?

Gorsuch was:

A. Replacing Scalia.  Replacing a staunch conservative with a staunch conservative didn't really tip the scales, whereas replacing swing vote Kennedy does; and
B. Just a few weeks out from an election where Dems have hopes of flipping the Senate.

[garbon]

Replacing a staunch conservative with a staunch conservative didn't really tip the scales

Given that it was pretty certain that Trump would get another appointment, I don't find it believable that Democrats weren't concerned.

[Oexmelin]

For those who know the Supreme Court better than I do: are there examples of individuals as so deliberately groomed for the Supreme Court as Kavanaugh is? I am not thinking here of a cursus honorum - but rather, a deliberate aiming at the position. 

[Valmy]

I like how the GOP hinted that if this is how the Dems play now, they would reciprocate on future Dem nominations.

Because if the Democrats had been cool the response would have been: wow you Democrats are so nice! We are going to cooperate big time when it comes to liberal nominations in the future to reciprocate!

[Valmy]

For those who know the Supreme Court better than I do: are there examples of individuals as so deliberately groomed for the Supreme Court as Kavanaugh is? I am not thinking here of a cursus honorum - but rather, a deliberate aiming at the position. 

I presume that is pretty standard. I assume both parties have a list of pre-vetted and groomed candidates ready to go.

[Eddie Teach]

Flake will vote for Kavanaugh and no one is surprised.

Unlike John McCain, Flake talks the talk, but never walks the walk. 100% of the time.

Just because he's anti-Trump, he's still a Republican.

[Syt]

Seems the American Bar Association wants the FBI to review the allegations against Kavanaugh.

4 Republican governors (Massachusetts, Maryland, Vemont, Ohio) also ask to delay the vote.

[Syt]

Even the Jesuits withdraw support: https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2018/09/27/editors-it-time-kavanaugh-nomination-be-withdrawn

[Oexmelin]

I presume that is pretty standard. I assume both parties have a list of pre-vetted and groomed candidates ready to go.

That's not quite what I am referring to. Having a list of potential candidates, and approaching them is one thing. Devoting your life to achieving that goal, and having people taking you under their wings precisely to achieve it, is another.

[OttoVonBismarck]

The Supreme Court has always been partisan but these "groomed" justices are generally a newer phenomenon. As the Supreme Court seats have gotten more and more integrated with the political parties, a major issue that Republicans found was a great many justices appointed by Republican Presidents weren't ruling as they should. This is because a number of issues really important to Republican political interests, the constitution and judicial precedent is basically against them. What they did in response was setup groups like The Federalist Society that basically start grooming lawyers from a young age, and making sure that they know who are the right kind of people, and then they approve these lawyers to short lists for judicial nominations. Then assuming they behave as expected at District and Circuit court judgeships, they get approved for supreme court shortlists.

There's a couple organizations that are the Democratic equivalents of the Federalist Society, but they aren't really nearly as prominent in Dem circles yet (I anticipate that may change.)