Hacker News Reader

Comment by devjab | Hacker News Reader

> Not familiar with that but I imagine that is going to be a controversial statement.

I'm not sure if it's fair to call it rigging, but there was a massive smear campaign against a judge nominated for their constitutional court. Leading to the nomination being withdrawn when it really should've been an appointment as usual. Which is likely the first massive step toward Germany politicising one of the foundations of their democracy, similar to how the USA supreme court seems like it's red vs blue when looked on from the outside.

I'm guessing this conference is rather left leaning, which is why they'd called that rigging, but there wasn't election fraud. It's an issue of course, since this means that rich people can essentially buy massive influence on the German democracy by clever use of social media and lies. Which may seem like the norm to a lot of people on HN, but that's not how it has traditionally been in Germany.

View on HN

You are talking like this is the first time judges have been blocked for political reasons. See Horst Dreier in 2008 as a high-profile example.

> similar to how the USA supreme court seems like it's red vs blue when looked on from the outside.

It's not just the outside who see it that way!

Thank you for the context. Everyone can draw their own conclusions but its helpful having more context on what they were talking about.

Not to mention that one of the major issues in that debate (for the supposedly "centrist" party) was abortion rights - even though most of her views on the topic were fairly in line with other sitting judges.

It's now alleged that this was caused by a disinformation campaign targeting MPs of that party.

https://www.volksverpetzer.de/analyse/brosius-gersdorf-union...

There's no "seeming": the current US Supreme Court is nakedly political.

Well, they're just people, so of course they are. Thankfully, there are folks representing both parties to keep it fair.

Thankfully??? Did I miss the /s at the end of that? Do you honestly believe it is fairly representing?

I am shocked, shocked I say, at discovering the US Supreme Court engages in politics! I got bad news for you friend: it always has been. That, or maybe you’re one of those knaves who thinks it’s only fair when your side gets to rule.

What part of my comment leads you to take away whatever is in your head? I just pointed out that SCOTUS is not a fair representation. You've clearly read somethings in between the lines or are confusing other threads.

I see this so often it gets old especially from a certain side of the aisle. If I make an intentionally contained and concise argument someone always seems to interpret it as if it was part of some larger point I'm making. I used to believe it was a tactic to draw you in. But more and more I believe it's reading comprehension and a good bit of built-in bias.

It is by definition representative and fair: Senators chosen by the people approved thier nomination to the court. You’re not this uninformed about how US politics work, are you?

I don't think you read his comment for comprehension. Whatever prompted your response does not follow from what the parent comment said.

So they Kavanaugh'd him, but it actually worked!

If Kavanaugh has become a verb, shouldn't Garland'd be a thing too when the Senate denies POTUS his constitutional right?

Since Garland didn't even get to a vote, it wasn't necessary to Kavanaugh (or Bork) him to the same degree. Abe Fortus got denied a vote via filibuster in '68, so you could say that Merrick Garland was Fortused.

But a filibuster is an accepted way for the minority to fight back. That's not the same thing as making up a new rule and denying a vote because it's a lame duck year. To equate the two is just strained logic at best.

Borked was the original

This is the correct answer. More memorable and better number of syllables. Although I'm sure he wasn't the first either.

TIL; I'd always used it for broken/stopped working but I looked it up - neat!

> Origin 1980s: from the name of Robert Bork (1927–2012), an American judge whose nomination to the Supreme Court (1987) was rejected following unfavorable publicity for his allegedly extreme views.

Is "Kavanaugh"ing someone to direct the FBI not to investigate or interview witnesses?

> Wray: "I apologize in advance that it has been frustrating for you. We have tried to be clear about our process. So when it comes to the tip line, we wanted to make sure that the White House had all the information we have.[180] So when the hundreds of calls started coming in, we gathered those up, reviewed them, and provided them to the White House."

> Whitehouse asked: "Without investigation?" After a long pause, Wray answered, "We reviewed them and then provided them to..." Whitehouse interjected: "You reviewed them for purposes of separating them from tip-line traffic, but did not further investigate the ones that related to Kavanaugh, correct?"[180] Wray confirmed that process. Whitehouse asked, "Is it also true that, in that supplemental B.I. (background investigation), the FBI took direction from the White House as to whom the FBI would question, and even what questions the FBI could ask?"[180] Wray confirmed that process.[180]

> Kavanaugh had Eighty-three ethics complaints brought against him regarding his behavior during those Supreme Court confirmation hearings. Chief Justice John Roberts appointed a special federal panel of judges to investigate them. In December 2018, the panel dismissed all the complaints, calling them "serious" but deciding that lower court judges are without any authority to investigate Supreme Court appointees.[181]

> In October 2024, Whitehouse published a final report supporting the view that the supplemental investigation was heavily curtailed by the Trump administration. [182]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_Kavanaugh_Supreme_Court_...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com