New SCOTUS Judge

Status
Not open for further replies.
thaiboxerken said:
https://www.gq.com/story/scotus-kavanaugh-credit-card-debt

I think the assertion that his debts were paid off by a mysterious third party is reached through inductive reasoning but isn't established fact.
Click to expand...

The question is: If he didn't have $200,000 in savings or liquid investments at the same time he had $200,000 in credit card debt, and suddenly that $200,000 in debt evaporated with no reduction in whatever savings and investments he had and no comparable increase in, say, the size of his mortgage, where did the money come from? Maybe he got a book advance. Maybe a rich uncle died. Maybe he sold his beach cottage. Maybe his wife sold her jewelry. But it's at least plausible that he received an off-the-books loan or even a gift from somebody who wants him on the Supreme Court. And maybe they won't expect a quid pro quo. Maybe they just know he'll vote they way they want about presidential subpoenas and indictments, restrictions on special counsels, etc., etc. It's not unreasonable to ask, "Hey, Brett, where'd ya get $200 grand?"
 
Kavanaugh reported between 60k and 200k in debt.

This will invariably be reported as 200k in debt.

Oh well... skeptics
 
River said:
The Senate Judiciary Committee has selected Arizona sex crimes prosecutor Rachel Mitchell to question Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford this week.
Click to expand...

Shame that the GOP members of that committee are a bunch of grey-hair old cowards, afraid of a 53 y.o. female professor.

I guess she would make the gutless old wankers look like the backward fools that they are.
 
Foolmewunz said:
Yeah, because asking for a medical record and mental health history is just the same as vivisection.
Click to expand...

Okay, let's all take things down a half-notch, at least on the subject of a liver biopsy, which might be the safest, quickest biopsy ever, and can actually be done under local anesthesia without any sedation.
 
smartcooky said:
Shame that the GOP members of that committee are a bunch of grey-hair old cowards, afraid of a 53 y.o. female professor.

I guess she would make the gutless old wankers look like the backward fools that they are.
Click to expand...

This was actually a completely understandable decision. It's pure optics. A bunch of conservative males trying to cross examine her and pick holes in her story? It would not play well. Graham's comments earlier were signalling to the troops. Even if you think you have discovered the holy grail of questions, DO NOT OPEN YOUR MOUTH. The do not want to see one Republican OWG (old white guy) questioning her for even a second.
 
Babbylonian said:
Okay, let's all take things down a half-notch, at least on the subject of a liver biopsy, which might be the safest, quickest biopsy ever, and can actually be done under local anesthesia without any sedation.
Click to expand...

I was just setting fire to a straw man. I'd settle for his medical records/history. TBD's kinda fond of hyperbole. (Well, his own hyperbole. He doesn't seem to like other people's.)
 
smartcooky said:
Shame that the GOP members of that committee are a bunch of grey-hair old cowards, afraid of a 53 y.o. female professor.

I guess she would make the gutless old wankers look like the backward fools that they are.
Click to expand...

Purely optics. They want a female questioning her instead of a bunch of old guys.
 
Bob001 said:
To repeat -- again -- this is not a criminal proceeding. He's a job applicant. The only question is whether he's the best person for the job. And he wasn't even on the Federalist Society's first list of prospects. There is no real doubt that he was nominated to the Supreme Court because he has expressed the opinion that the President can't be charged, indicted, subpoenaed or investigated. Trump needs him.
Click to expand...


An opinion, it should be pointed out, which seems to flip-flop depending on the political persuasion of the POTUS in question.

Just the sort of dispassionate, nonpartisan Justice we need on the Supreme Court.
 
Sherkeu said:
Do you believe my allegations are false? Maybe ISF should suspend or ban anyone who says 'cute' to a female poster til we get to the bottom of it! You don't want me continuing to feel abused, right? My word on that should be good enough..


As for the SCOTUS process, I think they need to put some rules on how 'new' information is handled or every single nomination will become a circus in its final days. Next time we'll have someone claiming child abuse or prostitution or <insert lurid claim here> an hour before the swearing in.
Click to expand...

Yep. I believe your allegations are false. They are dramatized to milk the most argument points of the situation.

People use the word "cute" all the time to describe situations, arguments, boys, girls, men, women (and numerous other gender identifications).

As to the "put some rules in place", tell it to the White House and the Republicans in the Senate. Why is last Friday or this Friday so important that this is a "last minute" situation? Members of congress have been pointing out since before the hearings even began that it was a rush job, that the administration was holding back information and that more time was needed. It doesn't give you cause to pause as to why such a rush? As I said previously, the Supremes have functioned just fine at various times with only eight seated members. I don't think Chuck and Mitch were all that worried about votes being uneven when they were stonewalling Obama's nominee. Now it's a rush job? Why? Knowing Trump and the Federalist Society one is tempted to wonder if they knew there was **** in his portfolio and they wanted to get it done before said **** hit the fan.

The pressing judicial issue, I just don't buy. Are there decisions coming that need that extra conservative vote? Smacks of partisanship if you ask me.
 
Questioning Ford directly would most certainly be very bad optics, as she is probably will be feeling very vulnerable and exhausted on Thursday (she is driving to Washington, reportedly because she can't stand the confines of a plane).
The question is: will Mitchell testify to her opinion of the interviews?
 
The Big Dog said:
Yeah, I was busy.

Most legal beagles understand the difference between preparing a witness, and "coaching" a witness. here we have a women who went from negligible memory to having some sort of memory. That ain't preparing, friendo, that is coaching.

<snip>
Click to expand...



A distinction you apparently are intent on conflating when it is convenient for you.

Dr. Keith said:
Right, but hereabouts the word coaching can be used as a catchall for witness prep, since you know, most people here aren't attorneys.

Do you have any evidence that there was actual unethical coaching or just witness prep that someone referred to as coaching?
Click to expand...


If you go back through the thread you will find that the first use of "coaching" was by TBD himself, in a post where he quoted from an article which described Ramirez "consulting" with an attorney before coming forward.

Since no testimony was on her schedule at that time, it would be difficult for her to be "coached" for it, whether such "coaching" would have been unethical or not.

TBD is, of course, unconcerned about such niceties, or about the fact that he seized upon the term "consulting", which he apparently finds no fault with in other situations, and disingenuously chose to substitute it with "coaching" so he could go on his bizarre, unfounded, and dubious tirade on ethics. (A subject about which he has proven himself to be an unreliable authority.)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom