Justice Samuel Alito Leaked Hobby Lobby Decision On Contraception In 2014: Report

[Edge-]

The quality of the attacks was so poor and the attacks so vicious and unfair that the verb 'bork' entered the political lexicon to describe such defamation and obstruction. If you want to bemoan whatever Republicans do today, you'd best call the original borking a mistake and thoroughly unjust. He was a decent man and a brilliant legal mind, but the politics of the day demanded the shattering of norms and injustice.

But this is probably not the best place to relitigate the original norm-breaking that Democrats would rather be forgotten.

I'm sure that Bork's explicit support of blatantly unconstitutional policies like poll taxes and literacy tests in the south might have had a bit of an impact on this.

https://ballsandstrikes.org/legal-cu...vative-martyr/

The list goes on: Bork did not believe the Equal Protection Clause applied to women (who he claimed, in 2011, “aren’t discriminated against anymore”). He argued that vulgar or explicit art is not protected by the First Amendment, expressly advocating for aggressive censorship of movies, music, and the Internet. He believed that poll taxes and literacy tests for voters were constitutional, and handwaved away the poll tax at issue in Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections as “a very small tax.” He had ruled as a federal judge that an employer could force female employees to choose between being fired or being sterilized. He was aggressively homophobic, ultimately spending a sizable portion of his post-judicial career promoting a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.

And as a reminder, six Republicans joined Democrats in voting against him so by modern standards that's an incredibly bipartisan vote.

He was simply a bad, extremist candidate. Period. No number of attempts to rewrite history by conservatives will change this.

Also, you know, when he was the Solicitor General under Richard Nixon and, after both AG Richardson and DAG Ruckelshaus refused to fire special prosecutor Archibold Cox, he was the one who fired Cox. A move which, last I checked largely universally, is viewed as beyond unethical and wrong.

[tehdang]

Yes. In coloquial usage within the united states, when someone talks about "congress" they mean the congressional house, which is differentiated from the Senate.

The colloquial usage is Congress to refer to both, and the "House" to refer to just one body of Congress.

"congress was Democrat controlled" is only appropriate if Democrats own both houses (both houses being a colloquial expression for the upper house and the lower house).

So, no, congress was not Democrat controlled from 2019 to 2021. Do you dispute that fact? I need to know your views on underlying reality, whether or not you speak a dialect of English that uses congress to describe only one half of congress.

Holding the presidency + Senate being a requirement to appoint judges is some kind of weird fucking fantasy you made up.

You're wanting to move on to discussing whether or not the Biden rule is appropriate, or whether the arguments he advanced are compelling. But first, you have to back up some claims from your previous post: When the Presidency and Senate are controlled by different parties, and they are the only ones that matter in the Presidential appointments we're talking about, do you understand that rules explicitly made for different parties' control are not implicated when there is united party control? Do you understand why that would not be hypocritical?

The House doesn't have a role in presidential appointments. Biden didn't speak about the control of the house. Therefore, it's important to know that you recognize what Biden said as Chairman of the Judiciary in 1992 doesn't impact the house, and understand why your accusations of hypocrisy regarding the house are totally irrelevant. I know you're wanting to make further claims and ask further questions, but you haven't been making sense in more than one of your past posts.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm sure that Bork's explicit support of blatantly unconstitutional policies like poll taxes and literacy tests in the south might have had a bit of an impact on this.

https://ballsandstrikes.org/legal-cu...vative-martyr/

As I said in the post, I don't think relitigating the craven and despicable campaign against Bork is useful when you're engaged with denying the obvious precedent of Biden and Schumer. The latter is at least partially relevant to an Alito thread. Schumer did refer to Alito in his foreshadowing of McConnell, and Alito's rulings passed into precedent because of justices that were confirmed under McConnell's leadership.

[Edge-]

As I said in the post, I don't think relitigating the craven and despicable campaign against Bork is useful when you're engaged with denying the obvious precedent of Biden and Schumer. The latter is at least partially relevant to an Alito thread. Schumer did refer to Alito in his foreshadowing of McConnell, and Alito's rulings passed into precedent because of justices that were confirmed under McConnell's leadership.

You're the one bringing Bork into the topic, so if we're going to be discussing judicial history then we might as well discuss factual judicial history and not the conservatives attempts to rewrite history with Bork as some poor victim of the radical left (which wasn't even a notion at that time).

Homeboy supported explicitly unconstitutional poll taxes and tests. Homeboy was instrumental in the Saturday Night Massacre under Nixon. Homeboy shouldn't have been on the Federal bench following that bullshit, much less nominated for a lifetime position to the SCOTUS.

Yes, if you're going to say that his last name became a verb because of "defamation", let's define what the defamation is.

Because as far as I can tell, per your own post the "defamation" would be correctly describing his views and still-recent actions.

Also, your leaning on the theoretical precedent again, is irrelevant. We're talking about things that have actually happened, not just someone giving a speach about a hypothetical situation which never occurred.

[Captain N]

I should be surprised at an extremist shill trying to rewrite history to paint his idol as a victim --- but then I remembered that's what it means to be Conservative these days.

[Gestopft]

But this is probably not the best place to relitigate the original norm-breaking that Democrats would rather be forgotten.

I won't argue any more over the details at the moment; I think @Edge- demonstrated more than adequately how outside of the mainstream he was. My point though, is that I don't think one can say this is where the norms broke: things went immediately back to normal in terms of nominations, with nominees mostly garnering extensive bipartisan support for some time after. I know conservatives LOVE to point to this is as the "original sin" in breaking down Senate norms instead of the outlier he was, but if you look at the votes that were happening before Bork and those that happened shortly after, it's really hard to argue that there's any sort of pattern there. Democrats didn't just wake up on the wrong side of the bed; he was obviously an ideological outlier that Reagan tried to get through.

- - - Updated - - -

I should be surprised at an extremist shill trying to rewrite history to paint his idol as a victim --- but then I remembered that's what it means to be Conservative these days.

Given the large number of Conservatives that insisted that every negative story is false and/or overblown instead of him actually being a uniquely awful candidate, I think you're rather on to something.

[tehdang]

You're the one bringing Bork into the topic, so if we're going to be discussing judicial history then we might as well discuss factual judicial history and not the conservatives attempts to rewrite history with Bork as some poor victim of the radical left (which wasn't even a notion at that time).

Homeboy supported explicitly unconstitutional poll taxes and tests. Homeboy was instrumental in the Saturday Night Massacre under Nixon. Homeboy shouldn't have been on the Federal bench following that bullshit, much less nominated for a lifetime position to the SCOTUS.

Yes, if you're going to say that his last name became a verb because of "defamation", let's define what the defamation is.

Because as far as I can tell, per your own post the "defamation" would be correctly describing his views and still-recent actions.

Also, your leaning on the theoretical precedent again, is irrelevant. We're talking about things that have actually happened, not just someone giving a speach about a hypothetical situation which never occurred.

My previous post should've made it obvious that I think you're attempting to rewrite history, and are doing so because the Democrats perpetrated a ridiculous injustice that presaged the current bare-knuckle fights Democrats now pretend are shocking and unprecedented. I profit by the knowledge that you think the truth is so totally behind your side of the argument, but beyond that, I don't think it is profitable to relitigate Bork 1987. You've already failed to quote and respond to large sections of the previous long post to you relitigating Biden and Schumer 1992 and 2007. I expect the same disappointment and further moves afield from a terribly sourced article on allegations against Alito in 2022.

I won't argue any more over the details at the moment

Fair enough. Maybe we'll have cause to participate in a megathread of all the alleged rewrites of history: The Bork confirmation hearings were appropriate, Bush didn't actually win the 2000 election, Reagan and Bush don't deserve credit for winning the Cold War, and the 2016 election was illegitimate as well.

[Edge-]

My previous post should've made it obvious that I think you're attempting to rewrite history, and are doing so because the Democrats perpetrated a ridiculous injustice that presaged the current bare-knuckle fights Democrats now pretend to oppose.

And, with the facts in front of us now, I think we can conclude that this is a position drawn from pure fantasy. Bork was simply a terrible candidate, and while it's really easy for Republicans to claim that the bipartisan rejection of an extremist candidate who was both well outside the norms for the time and more importantly held blatantly unconstitutional views was actually the first shot by Democrats - who seemingly ended this assault after Bork oddly enough, there's no merit to their pearl clutching.

I profit by the knowledge that you think the truth is so totally behind your side of the argument, but beyond that, I don't think it is profitable to relitigate Bork 1987.

You brought him up. You're using the ahistorical conservative arguments about his victimhood as the foundation for your argument. Don't run away just because you introduced a terrible example to attempt to support your argument, one that instead contradicts it.

You've already failed to quote and respond to large sections of the previous long post to you relitigating Biden and Schumer 1992 and 2007.

Because there's nothing to respond to. There is no "Biden Rule" nor a "Schumer Rule", except retroactively created by conservatives as a reaction to the actual McConnell rule that you know, was a thing that happened and not just a speech about a hypothetical.

[Gestopft]

The Bork confirmation hearings were appropriate

All I said was that whatever your opinion on the Bork hearings, it should be treated as an outlier rather than the origin of Senate norms breaking, because the nominations before and after didn't have any of that level of acrimony- and it took a while for nominations to the SCOTUS to become acrimonious again. You can be mad about how he was treated (I don't know much about how he was treated, but I think that rejecting him on the merits was every bit appropriate), but I still don't see a reason to say that even if the hearings were 'inappropriate' that they were when the nomination process started going off the rails.

[tehdang]

And, with the facts in front of us now, I think we can conclude that this is a position drawn from pure fantasy. Bork was simply a terrible candidate, and while it's really easy for Republicans to claim that the bipartisan rejection of an extremist candidate who was both well outside the norms for the time and more importantly held blatantly unconstitutional views was actually the first shot by Democrats - who seemingly ended this assault after Bork oddly enough, there's no merit to their pearl clutching.

Just how open are you to believing you're indulging in fantasy, Bork was a terrific man and nominee to office, and Democrats should be hanging their heads in shame at the remembrance of what they did? To reverse yourself, however begrudgingly, based on the facts involved in the matter? I observe your posts and make judgements on what is feasible for you and I. I don't think such a vast divide can be bridged on an internet gaming forum.

You brought him up. You're using the ahistorical conservative arguments about his victimhood as the foundation for your argument. Don't run away just because you introduced a terrible example to attempt to support your argument, one that instead contradicts it.

I introduced the example thinking it wasn't as much in dispute as more recent history. Bork and Estrada prove to me that Democrat representatives are willing to follow through on their threats for political calculations (since you griped about hypotheticals), but here I find out that Bork himself is an example you'll stand by.

Because there's nothing to respond to. There is no "Biden Rule" nor a "Schumer Rule", except retroactively created by conservatives as a reaction to the actual McConnell rule that you know, was a thing that happened and not just a speech about a hypothetical.

I say you're hiding from facts and trying to squirm your way out of the plain meaning of speeches given by prominent Democrats in the recent past. And you want to repeat this on Bork? Statements from Democrats become nothing more than mere hypotheticals when it serves you, and Republicans are in the wrong simply because they had opportunity to make good on theirs? That's literally where you're at right now. You're engaged in deliberately tilting the grounds of the debate to favor you. You hold standards of evidence for Democrats that you refuse to apply equally to Republicans, and furthermore you lack the willingness to compare related things when they are not identical things. I must conclude this is your practiced means of approaching the topics at hand. In a more hopeful note, the problems I'm finding here don't necessarily follow on to other topics in politics, so I don't think profitable discussion is forfeit everywhere.

All I said was that whatever your opinion on the Bork hearings, it should be treated as an outlier rather than the origin of Senate norms breaking, because the nominations before and after didn't have any of that level of acrimony- and it took a while for nominations to the SCOTUS to become acrimonious again. You can be mad about how he was treated (I don't know much about how he was treated, but I think that rejecting him on the merits was every bit appropriate), but I still don't see a reason to say that even if the hearings were 'inappropriate' that they were when the nomination process started going off the rails.

Like you said, "I won't argue any more over the details at the moment," but maybe I'll just leave you with a quote: "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 and midnight raids, and school children could not be taunt about evolution. Writers and artists would be censured at the whim of government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is and is often the only protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy."

[Edge-]

Bork was a terrific man and nominee to office

So we're just pretending that he didn't explicitly support poll taxes and tests? Memory holing his role in the Saturday Night Massacre? Sure seems like it.

and Democrats should be hanging their heads in shame at the remembrance of what they did?

This is pure fiction.

I introduced the example thinking it wasn't as much in dispute as more recent history.

You thought wrong. I don't buy into conservative attempts at historical fiction.

Bork and Estrada prove to me that Democrat representatives are willing to follow through on their threats for political calculations (since you griped about hypotheticals), but here I find out that Bork himself is an example you'll stand by.

No comment on Estrada, but your characterization of Bork continues to be deeply dishonest.

Statements from Democrats become nothing more than mere hypotheticals when it serves you

Because they were hypotheticals. The actual circumstances never appeared, as they did for McConnell.

Republicans are in the wrong simply because they had opportunity to make good on theirs?

Yes. If Democrats had been in that exact same position and used McConnell's exact same logic I'd similarly call it out as dishonest and in bad faith.

You hold standards of evidence for Democrats that you refuse to apply equally to Republicans

If circumstances were the same you'd have a point!

But you know...they weren't. So there goes your point.

[tehdang]

So we're just pretending that he didn't explicitly support poll taxes and tests? Memory holing his role in the Saturday Night Massacre? Sure seems like it.

This is pure fiction.

You thought wrong. I don't buy into conservative attempts at historical fiction.

No comment on Estrada, but your characterization of Bork continues to be deeply dishonest.

Because they were hypotheticals. The actual circumstances never appeared, as they did for McConnell.

Yes. If Democrats had been in that exact same position and used McConnell's exact same logic I'd similarly call it out as dishonest and in bad faith.

If circumstances were the same you'd have a point!

But you know...they weren't. So there goes your point.

May I just reiterate that in all your quote-blocking, you failed to include or address "Just how open are you to believing you're [engaging in fantasy, misleading about Bork, backing shameful behavior] and reverse yourself, however begrudgingly, based on the facts involved in the matter?"

For the rest, I think I already fairly covered them in my final paragraph of the part pertaining to you. If this is really your manner of approaching a topic where you believe facts are on your side, then I think further relitigation is pointless.

I say you're hiding from facts and trying to squirm your way out of the plain meaning of speeches given by prominent Democrats in the recent past. And you want to repeat this on Bork? Statements from Democrats become nothing more than mere hypotheticals when it serves you, and Republicans are in the wrong simply because they had opportunity to make good on theirs? That's literally where you're at right now. You're engaged in deliberately tilting the grounds of the debate to favor you. You hold standards of evidence for Democrats that you refuse to apply equally to Republicans, and furthermore you lack the willingness to compare related things when they are not identical things. I must conclude this is your practiced means of approaching the topics at hand. In a more hopeful note, the problems I'm finding here don't necessarily follow on to other topics in politics, so I don't think profitable discussion is forfeit everywhere.

[Edge-]

May I just reiterate that in all your quote-blocking, you failed to include or address "Just how open are you to believing you're [engaging in fantasy, misleading about Bork, backing shameful behavior] and reverse yourself, however begrudgingly, based on the facts involved in the matter?"

Again, did Bork support poll taxes and tests or not? Was he responsible for firing the special councel in the Saturday Night Massacre or not?

If these two things are true, then I have beyond zero problems fully agreeing with the bipartisan Senators that viewed him as too extreme for the SCOTUS before returning to their normal voting patterns.

If this is really your manner of approaching a topic where you believe facts are on your side, then I think further relitigation is pointless.

Because you have yet to show that the facts on my side aren't actually "facts". You've offered the "fact" that Bork was, in your words -

Bork was a terrific man and nominee to office

To which I've countered, showing two examples of why he was very much not a terrific man and nominee to office. You have yet to prove either example is counterfactual or without merit. Consequently I'm left to assume that your "facts" are not actually facts but simply opinions, and that the facts are indeed on my side.

I have historical citations of his actions and beliefs on my side. I'm waiting for you to show yours to support your belief and prove your "facts".

[Cthulhu 2020]

Non answer

It's absolutely hypocritical for McConnell to say one thing then turn around and do the opposite 4 years later. That's the definition of a hypocrite.

And since you made zero effort to explain what law or precedent requires one party to hold the Senate + Presidency, then I thank you for admitting that it was a naked power grab and that McConnell is a hypocrite.

Also hilarious that your little spiel about how congress = both house and senate, and claiming one party needs to control congress (hint: Democrats held the house in 2020 when the judge was appointed then) and that we shouldn't appoint a new judge under a split congress.

Tripping over your own reasoning while twisting yourself into knots, eh?

[Beefhammer]

personal attacks would stop if moderators banned trolls and bad faith posters.

Imagine this place if that actually happened. A lot of this could easily be stopped if Mods actually did their jobs instead of crying about posters not following forum rules.

[Captain N]

personal attacks would stop if moderators banned trolls and bad faith posters.

Did you not forget this place actually had a moderator that would do both of those things, permanently banned one of our best political posters, supported holding "suspected" border crossers at gunpoint, and even got the backing of a super moderator who said they could post conspiracy theories as long as they truly believed them?

[Fugus]

Did you not forget this place actually had a moderator that would do both of those things, permanently banned one of our best political posters, supported holding "suspected" border crossers at gunpoint, and even got the backing of a super moderator who said they could post conspiracy theories as long as they truly believed them?

That was a bad faith activist moderator who selectively enforced rules or flat out made up infractions.

Not even remotely the same thing as a real moderator.

[Captain N]

That was a bad faith activist moderator who selectively enforced rules or flat out made up infractions.

Not even remotely the same thing as a real moderator.

Maybe not but when his actions were permissible by blue mods when complaints were made, it's indicative of a greater problem than just one rogue bad faith activist.

[Fugus]

Maybe not but when his actions were permissible by blue mods when complaints were made, it's indicative of a greater problem than just one rogue bad faith activist.

True enough, real and fair moderation wasn't allowed but the activist stuff was allowed completely.