New SCOTUS Judge

Status
Not open for further replies.
Belz... said:
How do you define "lie", then?
Click to expand...

Lie or mischaracterization?

Emails leaked to the New York Times showing that Kavanaugh expressed doubts about whether Roe v. Wade was "settled law" in 2003, contradicting what he reportedly told Senator Susan Collins last month.
Click to expand...
Didn't he tell the senator that he considered it settled law while in the email he said it may not be true that all scholars consider it settled law.

I am not sure that all legal scholars refer to Roe as the settled law of the land at the Supreme court level since Court can always overrule its precedent, and three current Justices on the Court would do so,”
Click to expand...

Judge Brett Kavanaugh, told Republican Sen. Susan Collins he agreed that Roe v. Wade is settled law, Collins told reporters Tuesday.
Click to expand...
 
tyr_13 said:
Yeah, everyone knows you can't have multiple objectionable views. That would be like accusing a rapist of murder. No way someone could do both!
Click to expand...

Except Harris is lying and Clinton is parroting her lie. Kavanaugh didn't call birth control pills abortion inducing. He described the plaintiff's position in a case. The plaintiff, not Kavanaugh, called them that. And to say that describing a plaintiff's position accurately is an objectionable view is simply wrong.
 
Ziggurat said:
Except Harris is lying and Clinton is parroting her lie. Kavanaugh didn't call birth control pills abortion inducing. He described the plaintiff's position in a case. The plaintiff, not Kavanaugh, called them that. And to say that describing a plaintiff's position accurately is an objectionable view is simply wrong.
Click to expand...

But he supported the plaintiff's side. He accepted their argument. He didn't say "What the plaintiff claims are abortion-inducing drugs." He didn't say "I support the broad principle the plaintiff espouses, despite their misunderstanding of human biology." Or something. And even that raises the question of whether a federal judge should accept or even consider an argument based on misstatements/lies about scientific fact. When Clinton says this was another dog whistle, she's right.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/brett-kavanaugh-birth-control_us_5b917b79e4b0162f472b3cb8
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...ing-drugs-comment_us_5b9a5af8e4b015089c0dfd82
 
Ziggurat said:
Except Harris is lying and Clinton is parroting her lie. Kavanaugh didn't call birth control pills abortion inducing. He described the plaintiff's position in a case. The plaintiff, not Kavanaugh, called them that. And to say that describing a plaintiff's position accurately is an objectionable view is simply wrong.
Click to expand...

even Politifact declared this statement FALSE.

harris and Hillary lying, must be a day that ends in "y"
 
Bob001 said:
But he supported the plaintiff's side. He accepted their argument. He didn't say "What the plaintiff claims are abortion-inducing drugs." He didn't say "I support the broad principle the plaintiff espouses, despite their misunderstanding of human biology." Or something.
Click to expand...

He doesn't have to. The correctness of their understanding of human biology wasn't what the case depended upon. It's proper for a judge to remain silent on issues that don't affect the outcome of the case.

And even that raises the question of whether a federal judge should accept or even consider an argument based on misstatements/lies about scientific fact.
Click to expand...

When the argument doesn't depend upon the scientific correctness of that belief, but only your right to act on it, then absolutely yes. As was the case here. The courts don't need to conclude that you can contact spirits by taking peyote in order to rule that Native Americans have the right to take it as part of their religious ceremonies.

When Clinton says this was another dog whistle, she's right.
Click to expand...

What possible purpose would Kavanaugh have for sending out a dog whistle? He's already been nominated, and he's already got a lock on the conservative wing of the party. All he has to do is not get any centrist Republicans to defect. And dog whistles can't help him do that, they could only hurt. Clinton's theory is basically that Kavanaugh is an idiot who can't control himself. But you've got to be an idiot to believe that's the case.
 
Here is the language from the dissent they were talking about:

Many prominent religious organizations around the country — including the plaintiffs in this case — have bitterly objected to this scheme. They complain that submitting the required form contravenes their religious beliefs because doing so, in their view, makes them complicit in providing coverage for contraceptives, including some that they believe operate as abortifacients. They say that the significant monetary penalty for failure to submit the form constitutes a substantial burden on their exercise of religion. They contend, moreover, that the Government has less restrictive ways of ensuring that the employees of the religious organizations have access to contraception without making the organizations complicit in the scheme in this way.
Click to expand...

Harris and Hillary are a couple of frauds
 
Ziggurat said:
What possible purpose would Kavanaugh have for sending out a dog whistle? He's already been nominated, and he's already got a lock on the conservative wing of the party. All he has to do is not get any centrist Republicans to defect. And dog whistles can't help him do that, they could only hurt. Clinton's theory is basically that Kavanaugh is an idiot who can't control himself. But you've got to be an idiot to believe that's the case.
Click to expand...

Exactly if anything he should have been whistling at those on the fence not those whose votes are already decided.

Pretty much a nominee or a politician can't do anything without someone claiming it is a dog whistle.

unrelated but my dog comes when I clap loudly not whistle. It's harder for her to pretend she didn't hear anything.
 
Ziggurat said:
He doesn't have to. The correctness of their understanding of human biology wasn't what the case depended upon. It's proper for a judge to remain silent on issues that don't affect the outcome of the case.



When the argument doesn't depend upon the scientific correctness of that belief, but only your right to act on it, then absolutely yes. As was the case here. The courts don't need to conclude that you can contact spirits by taking peyote in order to rule that Native Americans have the right to take it as part of their religious ceremonies.



What possible purpose would Kavanaugh have for sending out a dog whistle? He's already been nominated, and he's already got a lock on the conservative wing of the party. All he has to do is not get any centrist Republicans to defect. And dog whistles can't help him do that, they could only hurt. Clinton's theory is basically that Kavanaugh is an idiot who can't control himself. But you've got to be an idiot to believe that's the case.
Click to expand...
This is exactly the case. Knee jerk reaction. And overuse of the term dog whistle.
 
"I have received information from an individual concerning the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court," Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, said in a statement. "That individual strongly requested confidentiality, declined to come forward or press the matter further, and I have honored that decision," she said.
"I have, however, referred the matter to federal investigative authorities," she added.
Click to expand...

Gee what is that vague letter about, but Diana is certainly doing the right thing in issuing worthless press release about it.

(the rumor is that it is from a woman about an incident while they both were in high school. is that within the FBI's jurisdiction?
Narrator: No it is not.)
 
The Big Dog said:
Gee what is that vague letter about, but Diana is certainly doing the right thing in issuing worthless press release about it.

(the rumor is that it is from a woman about an incident while they both were in high school. is that within the FBI's jurisdiction?
Narrator: No it is not.)
Click to expand...


On a Friday night forty years ago in the backseat of a friends car, high school student Brett Kavanaugh made his move, he tried to go from first base to second base.

Been there, done that!
 
Last edited:
And from left field:

Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein of California referred a letter to federal investigators on Thursday regarding President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh.

The letter contains information about an incident involving possible sexual misconduct between Kavanaugh and a woman when the two were in high school, according to two officials familiar with the contents of the letter who spoke to The New York Times.

The letter was first reported by The Intercept on Wednesday, but the contents of it were largely unknown. The Intercept also reported the letter's subject was about an incident in high school between Kavanaugh and a woman, but the report did not mention sexual misconduct.

The letter is reportedly from a California constituent of Feinstein, who is the highest-ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Feinstein did not allow any of her democratic colleagues on the committee to view the letter, instead handing it over to federal authorities.

The unnamed woman who is the subject of the letter has also reportedly retained legal counsel. Debra Katz, an attorney who has represented other woman who have accused men of sexual misconduct as part of the #MeToo movement, has been hired by the woman, according to The Intercept.

Feinstein’s office released a statement Thursday morning saying it had received “information from an individual concerning” Kavanaugh. The unnamed individual “strongly requested confidentiality [and declined] to come forward or press the matter further.” Feinstein then passed the information along to the FBI.
Click to expand...

Linky.
 
BobTheCoward said:
What does the year matter?
Click to expand...

say, lets have a little fun! Give me three reasons why you think the fact it allegedly happened no later than 1983 might matter.

There are no wrong answers! Let your critical thinking skills really shine.

Excited!
 
The Big Dog said:
say, lets have a little fun! Give me three reasons why you think the fact it allegedly happened no later than 1983 might matter.

There are no wrong answers! Let your critical thinking skills really shine.

Excited!
Click to expand...

I don't follow. I didn't give an opinion on it. Do you always ask people randomly their opinion?
 
BobTheCoward said:
I don't follow. I didn't give an opinion on it. Do you always ask people randomly their opinion?
Click to expand...

I didn't randomly ask your opinion, I simply suggested that you try to answer your own question. It is a real learning experience.

You see, Bob, when my kids ask me a question, sometimes I suggest that they try to answer it first! Then we work through the issue and lo and behold, sometimes they figure it out all on their own! they are usually so proud and it is the type of this that they really remember.

So, you up for it? lets have some fun and try something a bit different.
 
The Big Dog said:
I didn't randomly ask your opinion, I simply suggested that you try to answer your own question. It is a real learning experience.

You see, Bob, when my kids ask me a question, sometimes I suggest that they try to answer it first! Then we work through the issue and lo and behold, sometimes they figure it out all on their own! they are usually so proud and it is the type of this that they really remember.

So, you up for it? lets have some fun and try something a bit different.
Click to expand...

You made a claim, it is your obligation to support it. I had made no claim. Asking me to devise explanations to defend your claim is not how skepticism works.

When proving they discovered the higgs boson, and others asked how, they didn't tell the others to try and figure it out, first.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom