New SCOTUS Judge

[Bob001]

LETS IMMEDIATELY BIOPSY HIS LIVER!

this thing is getting more unhinged every single day....

It's an irrevocable lifetime appointment to a position that has a direct impact on every American's life. And yet we're expected to give him a pass on matters that would disqualify an applicant to be a city cop.

 

[The Big Dog]

It's an irrevocable lifetime appointment to a position that has a direct impact on every American's life. And yet we're expected to give him a pass on matters that would disqualify an applicant to be a city cop.

He already has a lifetime appointment to a position that can have an impact on every American's life, he has gone through background checks, at least twice, and there has not been a hint that he has had a drinking problem while sitting as US Circuit Court judge. No one is giving him a pass and you know it.

Demanding to see his medical records because he used to drink a lot in college?

Ridiculous

 

[Arcade22]

Are you suggesting that "gang rape' does not involve violence?

By the way, Thirsty is such a sleazebag.

There's no requirement that rape, including gang rape, involve violence. Or at least there shouldn't be.

Having sexual intercourse, or performing an equivalent act, with someone that's unconscious or otherwise incapacitated and unable to consent is still rape yet i would not necessarily call it violent.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Are you suggesting that "gang rape' does not involve violence?

The allegations appear to be that the women in question were drunk or drugged enough not to be able to resist. I don't imagine that raping someone who's all-but-unconscious requires much in the way of violence.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Hi! Thanks for posting. Lawyers coaching witnesses is neither standard nor reasonable and destroys a witness’s credibility. Coaching a witness means that the lawyer tells the witness what to say.

Coaching a witness is sanctionable and unethical conduct

here is an article that explains it

I enjoy your posts, let’s endeavor not to get anything that wrong ever again.

And yet kavanaugh spent the last week doing what?

 

[Bob001]

....
Demanding to see his medical records because he used to drink a lot in college?

Ridiculous

If he was a belligerent drunk it would support allegations that he assaulted at least two women while drunk, which is the underlying issue here.

And applicants for many sensitive jobs are required to release records of drug and alcohol treatment or psychiatric care.

 

[The Big Dog]

And yet kavanaugh spent the last week doing what?

getting pilloried by the last gasp leftists

 

[Bob001]

There's no requirement that rape, including gang rape, involve violence. Or at least there shouldn't be.

Having sexual intercourse, or performing an equivalent act, with someone that's unconscious or otherwise incapacitated and unable to consent is still rape yet i would not call it necessarily violent.

Violent doesn't have to mean baseball bats. If someone overpowers a person who is too drunk or drugged to resist, that is violence.

 

[pgwenthold]

If he was a belligerent drunk it would support allegations that he assaulted at least two women while drunk, which is the underlying issue here.

And applicants for many sensitive jobs are required to release records of drug and alcohol treatment or psychiatric care.

And this is why I posed my question of when was the last time he had a drink?

Alcoholics are well-known to understate the severity of their drinking. Given the extreme descriptions of his behavior when he was young, it is absolutely fair (and right) to determine his drinking habits now.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

his gambling habits, his drinking and his debt show that he is a highly compromised character - with or without a habit of sexual misconduct.

 

[theprestige]

Hi! Thanks for posting. Lawyers coaching witnesses is neither standard nor reasonable and destroys a witness’s credibility. Coaching a witness means that the lawyer tells the witness what to say.

Coaching a witness is sanctionable and unethical conduct

here is an article that explains it

Thank you. I misunderstood the meaning of the term you were using. I stand by the rest of my feedback to you.

I enjoy your posts, let’s endeavor not to get anything that wrong ever again.

I'm glad you do, and I can make no promises.

 

[Arcade22]

Violent doesn't have to mean baseball bats.

No but it does require that the act causes non-negligible damage and injury. Look up the definition of "violence" in a dictionary. Compare the legal difference between "assault" and "battery".

If someone overpowers a person who is too drunk or drugged to resist, that is violence.

No. You are conflating violence with force here. One can utilize physical force to restrain someone without necessarily doing it violently.

 

[MikeG]

getting pilloried by the last gasp leftists

And all the decent ordinary human beings who have rather higher expectations of their public servants than Senate GOP members appear to have.

 

[Segnosaur]

He already has a lifetime appointment to a position that can have an impact on every American's life...

While an appeal judge can have an impact on people's lives, their authority pales in comparison to that of a supreme court judge, who's rulings can set precedents that lower courts cannot.

Because supreme court justices have more authority, background checks and and should be more through.

he has gone through background checks, at least twice...

Background checks are a good thing, but they may not necessarily catch everything.

A rational person would say "if evidence exists that the original background check missed something, then the background check should be expanded to make sure there isn't a problem".

and there has not been a hint that he has had a drinking problem while sitting as US Circuit Court judge.

Its possible that he is a "high-functioning alcoholic"... able to maintain his position despite excessive alcohol use.

The problem is, high-functioning alcoholics (even successful ones) can have problems related to their drinking, including memory loss (which would be rather significant in someone who is a supreme court judge.) They are also at risk of health problems (e.g. increased risk of cancer), are often involved n domestic violence, etc. And the fact that the supreme court is a higher profile (and probably more stressful position) than the appeal court would likely exacerbate the problem.

Because of that, I think it makes sense that those confirming a supreme court nomination know whether the person they're voting on likes to get drunk and kills off brain cells on a regular basis.

https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/addiction/features/high-functioning-alcoholic#1

No one is giving him a pass and you know it.

There are plenty of Kavenaugh apologists giving him a pass. Including you.. They may play lip-service and lie about how they are all about 'fairness', but at the end of the day they like the idea of a potential rapist sitting on the supreme court ruling on women's rights.

 

[applecorped]

What a cute thread

 

[Bob001]

No but it does require that the act causes non-negligible damage and injury. Look up the definition of "violence" in a dictionary. Compare the legal difference between "assault" and "battery".

No. You are conflating violence with force here. One can utilize physical force to restrain someone without necessarily doing it violently.

Allow me to help you:

Violence is defined by the World Health Organization as "the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation," although the group acknowledges that the inclusion of "the use of power" in its definition expands on the conventional understanding of the word.[2]

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

If somebody puts a gun to your head and says "Gimme your wallet!," that's an act of violence, even if he doesn't pull the trigger.

 

[The Big Dog]

And all the decent ordinary human beings who have rather higher expectations of their public servants than Senate GOP members appear to have.

well the "decent ordinary human beings" who subscribe to guilty before proven innocent.... hmmm, so not "decent ordinary human beings" at all but partisans who are suffering from a touch of TDS

 

[The Great Zaganza]

A Supreme Court nominee needs no qualification other than the ability to being nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate.
We don't know all about the FBI background check, and he certainly didn't get the scrutiny a Security Clearance would have required. Furthermore, the FBI doesn't make any recommendation when it comes to nominees.

 

[theprestige]

his gambling habits, his drinking and his debt show that he is a highly compromised character - with or without a habit of sexual misconduct.

Highly compromised? How do you figure? The FBI background check uncovered that he occasionally carried a high debt load... Which he serviced in the usual way like a responsible adult. The FBI background check did not uncover evidence of him showing up to court drunk, or issuing rulings under the influence. It didn't uncover evidence of his judgements being suborned, using his gambling or other debts as a lever.

How highly compromised is that?

 

[Segnosaur]

getting pilloried by the last gasp leftists

You see, this is exactly why you fail.

Not everyone here (or in the political world) who opposes the confirmation of Kavanaugh (or think his background needs to be re-examined) is a "leftist". There are many people who may have conservative or centrist leanings, yet still dislike Trump and/or dislike the idea of a possibly drunk rapist with gambling problems taking a position on the supreme court.

It shouldn't be a left-vs-right issue whether a potential drunk rapist is sitting on the supreme court, but the republicans (and you) are making it that way.