New SCOTUS Judge

Status
Not open for further replies.
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Former associate David Brock claims Kavanaugh has been heavily involved in leaking information
Click to expand...


That's not the worst David Brock says about him:

Both Ted and Brett had what one could only be called an unhealthy obsession with the Clintons — especially Hillary. While Ted was pushing through the Arkansas Project conspiracy theories claiming that Clinton White House lawyer and Hillary friend Vincent Foster was murdered (he committed suicide), Brett was costing taxpayers millions by pedaling the same garbage at Starr's office.

A detailed analysis of Kavanaugh's own notes from the Starr Investigation reveals he was cherry-picking random bits of information from the Starr investigation — as well as the multiple previous investigations — attempting vainly to legitimize wild right-wing conspiracies. For years he chased down each one of them without regard to the emotional cost to Foster’s family and friends, or even common decency.

Kavanaugh was not a dispassionate finder of fact but rather an engineer of a political smear campaign. And after decades of that, he expects people to believe he's changed his stripes.
Click to expand...
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opini...his-years-republican-operative-don-ncna907391
 
Character witnesses testify about Kavanaugh:
The “outside witnesses” who testified on Kavanaugh’s behalf came across as insensitive and clueless. Those who testified against the nominee shared agonizing stories that illustrated how his rulings could degrade and destroy their well-being. The result was a surreal spectacle that revealed just how oblivious Kavanaugh’s supporters are to the consequences of his jurisprudence.
Click to expand...
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/kavanaugh-confirmation-hearing-outside-witnesses.html
 
The Big Dog said:
Former associate? Lolz.

Say, why don’t you call him “current fanatical democrat operative and all round piece of **** David Brock.”

David Brock is against him? Insta- nomination. What a mutt.
Click to expand...

And to think, it was just a day or two ago that you were complaining about ad hominems.
 
Bob001 said:
That's exactly what it means. So he thinks a president should be exempt from all civil and criminal investigations, let alone prosecutions, no matter what he may have done in office or before he took office.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure that a president is exempt from congressional investigation for crimes he may have committed before being elected. Who has said that, Kavanaugh?


Why? Why should that be the case?
Click to expand...
According to Kavanaugh, and at least two different DOJs, one from each party, the job of the president is too demanding and important to spend time on mounting a defense if he is indicted or charged criminally or civilly. See the quote in my prior post.


Where does the Constitution exempt this one person -- alone among all Americans -- from the ordinary processes of law?
Click to expand...
He doesn't believe that it does, hence his suggestion that Congress should pass a law that mandates a deferral of prosecution and investigation.

I would recommend reading the opinion that he wrote in the Minnesota Law Review for a better understanding of what he meant without the spin of the media and politicians, both for and against his nomination.

It's only eight paragraphs long and shouldn't take more than a few minutes to read. It starts on page 6 of this PDF.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
And to think, it was just a day or two ago that you were complaining about ad hominems.
Click to expand...

HI! Lets learn, TOGETHER.

A guy posts a picture of money changing hands. A skeptic replies that the guy had retweeted Fox News. Blatant ad hominem fallacy.

A guy writes an opinion piece, a person links the piece as an appeal to authority. An actual skeptic points out that the person writing the opinion is a known confabulator, and democratic operative and therefore is biased. Not a fallacy.

Man I envy the people reading this post. They learned something
 
The Big Dog said:
HI! Lets learn, TOGETHER.

A guy posts a picture of money changing hands. A skeptic replies that the guy had retweeted Fox News. Blatant ad hominem fallacy.

A guy writes an opinion piece, a person links the piece as an appeal to authority. An actual skeptic points out that the person writing the opinion is a known confabulator, and democratic operative and therefore is biased. Not a fallacy.

Man I envy the people reading this post. They learned something
Click to expand...

Well, you believe that, and that's the important thing.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Well, you believe that, and that's the important thing.
Click to expand...

Well, actually, I explained my position quite clearly and linked to an authoritative third party source to support it.

It ain't as if I simply polluted the thread with links to opinion pieces written by idiots.

Oh, "good" "comeback" tho.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
And to think, it was just a day or two ago that you were complaining about ad hominems.
Click to expand...

Wait, him? Seriously? I mean, I don't bother looking at what he writes most of the time, but...huh.

Anyway, dunno what I can tell so-called "progressives" who didn't vote for Clinton. She warned people, so did a lot of other people, they screeched that she was just trying to scare them, and now here we are.
 
The Big Dog said:
Well, actually, I explained my position quite clearly and linked to an authoritative third party source to support it.

It ain't as if I simply polluted the thread with links to opinion pieces written by idiots.

Oh, "good" "comeback" tho.
Click to expand...

I'm glad you're happy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom