New SCOTUS Judge

Status
Not open for further replies.
sylvan8798 said:
I find my own copious imperfections and checkered past to be such that, were society to judge and decide as what and where I could exist, it would probably end up being as a houseplant on some small island north of Siberia. :eye-poppi
Click to expand...
I don't see what that has to do with a guy who already has a lifetime appointment as a federal judge. No one has proposed taking away his current job. No one has even seriously proposed prosecuting him for the alleged crime. The only serious proposal from those who take this seriously is that he not be allowed to become a justice on the Supreme Court - something already denied to virtually all legal practitioners.
 
I find it disgusting that the GOP is complaining that this woman came out at the last minute when they were trying to have the confirmation process take 45 seconds.
 
Tsukasa Buddha said:
Eh, I don't believe this. We aren't the jury of a criminal court, and neither is is Senate Judiciary Committee. Furthermore, even if we were, testimony alone can be sufficient evidence (it varies by State, and I can't find what the standard is for Maryland).
Click to expand...

I don't think we, or the committee, have to go the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard, but if the accusation is enough to find in favor of the accuser, then anyone is fair game for any sort of slander.

Testimony, especially in front of cross examiners, could be sufficient evidence. If one or the other just doesn't sound credible, I wouldn't demand physical or documentary evidence, but so far, all we have is a letter of accusation from one side, and a categorical denial on the other. It's not much to go on, so I don't think that, today, it would be fair to Kavanaugh to decide he is guilty. Perhaps more importantly, it would be a really dangerous trend. I've already expressed what I think of the "all women should be believed" school of thought when it comes to rape accusations.


It's dangerous to speculate on hypotheticals, because so many different developments are possible. However, this is an internet forum, so it's pretty low risk. I'll speculate away. One thing that would tip me into the "throw the bum out" camp would be if he suddenly develops a very bad memory. Kavanaugh did very well in law school, and he just spent a week demonstrating that he had extremely good recall of very minor details of specific law cases. This guy has a great memory. If suddenly he can't remember anything, he's lying. It really all depends on who says what about that party, and if any corroborating witnesses come forward.
 
The Big Dog said:
The FBI ain’t her private investigator, particularly for something that isn’t a federal crime in the first place, and on which the statute of limitations ran decades ago.

Lets reschedule the vote, and assign this stall tactic to the dustbin of history
Click to expand...

Wrong on two counts.

1. The FBI is in fact the agency that conducts background checks, including interviewing witnesses and investigating allegations unrelated to criminal matters. I have been interviewed by the FBI when friends sought security clearances. My friends have been interviewed about me when I sought a security clearance. Indeed, they have already done investigations into Kavanaugh's background.

I'm not necessarily saying they ought to be the ones to check this out, but I can't think of a reason why they couldn't.

2. Maryland has no statute of limitations for sexual assault. (I heard it on Rush Limbaugh today, so it must be true.)
 
Last edited:
sylvan8798 said:
I will be very surprised if this derails his appointment. I don't support him, but OTOH if this was a one-time drunken groping at 17, I don't think that in itself should disqualify him. I DO think if it's true he should fall on the mercy of the court (public opinion and the senate in this case) and say so. And be repentant. Really repentant. Because it's the lying about it now...and the fact that he sits in judgment of others.

I'm suddenly wondering if he has heard any rape or assault cases in his career?
Click to expand...

To repeat an earlier thought, and one that has been shared by Senator Collins among others, by issuing a strongly worded denial, he denied it "categorically" and "unequivocally", he made the issue not one of alleged groping at age 17, but one of integrity at age 51.


The thing that bothers me and a lot of other people, some more than others, about Judge Kavanaugh is that he doesn't seem to be a real straight shooter. He kind of seems flexible on the truth. In my opinion, it isn't enough for me to join the chorus calling it perjury, and it isn't even severe enough for me to say that no senator ought to vote for him, but there have been a couple of issues where he seemed to equivocate. He said some things that were sort of true, but sort of not.

When it comes to this sexual assault charge, there's no way to interpret his words as anything other than a complete and total denial of the charges. If it turns out that, well, he and Mark Judge were alone in the room with her, but.....then he should be disqualified.


His selling point as a candidate is that he takes a completely neutral stand on the constitution and the law, not reading in his own opinions or political beliefs. If he's willing to turn the truth into whatever he wants it to be, he would be willing to stretch the law into what he would want it to be.


I should emphasize that the paragraphs above use the word "if" several times. Right now, the sexual assault case against him is far from proven, and in my opinion is not yet convincing. However, we haven't heard all the evidence. That can change. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt because the evidence is very scant at the moment, but if that changes, my opinion might as well. MOre importantly, I think the opinions of some key senators will also change if that happens. If.
 
Grassley on Tuesday evening said there was "no reason" to delay the hearing. Republicans have invited both Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford, his accuser, to testify publicly.

“Dr. Ford’s testimony would reflect her personal knowledge and memory of events. Nothing the FBI or any other investigator does would have any bearing on what Dr. Ford tells the committee, so there is no reason for any further delay," Grassley said.
Click to expand...

Linky.

As expected, Grassley will just move forward anyway. Interestingly, it is actually up to the White House to start the FBI investigation.
 
sylvan8798 said:
I will be very surprised if this derails his appointment. I don't support him, but OTOH if this was a one-time drunken groping at 17, I don't think that in itself should disqualify him. I DO think if it's true he should fall on the mercy of the court (public opinion and the senate in this case) and say so. And be repentant. Really repentant. Because it's the lying about it now...and the fact that he sits in judgment of others.
Click to expand...

If he didn't do it, should he repent anyway?
 
Grassley: how you feel after one too many bean burritos.

In all seriousness, the esteemed senator should intercourse himself. With a drunken friend looking on.
 
Kavanaugh told college students in 2015:
“What happens at Georgetown Prep stays at Georgetown Prep,” Kavanaugh said of his all-boys high school in a speech to the Columbus School of Law in 2015 that aired on MSNBC Tuesday. “That's been a good thing for all of us, I think.”
Click to expand...
https://news.vice.com/en_us/article...s-at-georgetown-prep-stays-at-georgetown-prep
https://observer.com/2018/09/heres-...joking-about-what-happens-at-georgetown-prep/

Kinda sounds like he had something to hide?
 
Ford wants FBI to investigate before she testifies to Congress:
The woman who has accused Brett M. Kavanaugh of sexual assault decades ago wants the FBI to investigate her allegation before she testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee — a demand that came as President Trump and Senate Republicans increasingly rallied to the defense of the embattled Supreme Court nominee.

“A full investigation by law enforcement officials will ensure that the crucial facts and witnesses in this matter are assessed in a non-partisan manner, and that the committee is fully informed before conducting any hearing or making any decisions,” lawyers for the woman, Christine Blasey Ford, said in a letter to the panel late Tuesday.
Click to expand...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...60695e7f3fc_story.html?utm_term=.f8f898991b7a
 
Roger Ramjets said:
Babbylonian said:
Is it really that hard to find SCOTUS candidates who have never put someone in fear for their life while sexually assaulting them?
Click to expand...
No, but it gets harder when you narrow the field down to conservative candidates.

...can only originate in the mind of someone who's been absolutely brainwashed into believing that sexual assault is no big deal.
Click to expand...
Deplorables don't need to be brainwashed into believing such a thing - it comes naturally to them.
Click to expand...


Yup, it's tough (or either not hard at all, depending on how you look at it) to 'brainwash' someone into believing something they already believe.

Trump deplorables don't believe this because they voted for Trump, they voted for Trump because they believe this. (Among other deplorable things.)
 
Last edited:
As McConnell correctly said: there is too much of a paper trail on Kavanaugh.
He has written way too much material that shows that he doesn't respect core tenets of the Constitution (except in a weird Originalist/Christian Nation interpretation).

Whilst the accusations of sexual assault need to be taken seriously, unless we have evidence that Kavanaugh continued this behavior, this issue is far less serious than the detrimental impact a lifetime appointment of this deeply flawed character would have on the SCOTUS.
 
Let's just hurry up and schedule a vote on Kavanaugh. The seat has been vacant for almost two months. The Democrat party is using delay tactics that could push this more than a week, purely for politics (which is totally unacceptable and unfair to judge Garland Kavanaugh).
 
A completely unrelated question: Is there anyway to get rid of a SCOTUS judge after confirmation, apart from second amendment solutions?
 
uke2se said:
A completely unrelated question: Is there anyway to get rid of a SCOTUS judge after confirmation, apart from second amendment solutions?
Click to expand...


The Constitution provides for the impeachment of Supreme Court Justices under the same Articles which govern the impeachment of the President and other high officials.

SCOTUS Justice Samuel Chase was impeached by the House of Representatives in 1804 but was acquitted by the Senate.

Abe Fortas stepped down from his office as a SCOTUS Justice in 1969 under threat of impeachment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom