New SCOTUS Judge

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Big Dog said:
Slow clap.... I commend you for typing all that next level gibberish without even coming close to a cogent response. Is that a macro?

To reiterate:

"the Poet is your hero, the admitted fabricator and mope Seth" Abramson.
Click to expand...

And here I'd have thought you might have learnt a lesson about choosing to believe what you'd like to be true, rather than forming your opinions based on what is actually true. Actually, that's a lie. I didn't think you'd do that at all. But you should probably consider it.
 
Belz... said:
That's possible but, since you brought it up, to what end? That's not exactly something that would help their careers, and they're not looking for a settlement.
Click to expand...

Everyone knows that making false rape allegations is the quick and easy way to fame and riches.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
And here I'd have thought you might have learnt a lesson about choosing to believe what you'd like to be true, rather than forming your opinions based on what is actually true. Actually, that's a lie. I didn't think you'd do that at all. But you should probably consider it.
Click to expand...

'k.

Hoo boy, that is some next level time wasting.
 
Belz... said:
How would that be better to interpret laws than, you know, lawyers?
Click to expand...

While I'm not of the following viewpoint, there are some that argue the role of the judge is not merely to call balls and strikes bt weigh the implications of their rulings. The law based justices tend not to take that position.
 
Belz... said:
How would that be better to interpret laws than, you know, lawyers?
Click to expand...

Lawyers are largely technicians. They learn how to apply the laws to serve their clients. The Supreme Court ultimately interprets the Constitution itself to determine whether any particular law meets the Constitution's requirements. Historians and political scientists would be well-equipped to help understand the Founders' intentions, and apply them to contemporary issues.

ETA: I note that a failing of our political system is that political office is largely considered a career step for lawyers. A large majority of legislators are lawyers. But lawyers know how to apply the laws as they are. They don't necessarily know more than anybody else about what the laws should be, in a complex, multi-cultural society that aspires to equality and justice for all.
 
Last edited:
More:
And that creepy "Renate alumni" on the yearbook page of the football team (including Kavanaugh). The woman in question signed a letter of support for Kavanaugh, before she was aware of the yearbook references (there were at least 14 of them). After she found out she was obviously hurt by the comments.

Can anyone come up with an innocent explanation of this?
 
Sheila Jackson Lee was just caught on tape slipping Ford's lawyer an envelope during a break...
 
Bob001 said:
Lawyers are largely technicians. They learn how to apply the laws to serve their clients. The Supreme Court ultimately interprets the Constitution itself to determine whether any particular law meets the Constitution's requirements. Historians and political scientists would be well-equipped to help understand the Founders' intentions, and apply them to contemporary issues.
Click to expand...
And yet they disagree 5-4 all the time, offering their soundest reasoning.

At this point I have more confidence in Judge Judy than those folks.
 
I am not concerned about Ford's or Ramirez's accusations.
Ford's is very consistent with the way memories fail either conflating events, people, trauma becoming exaggerated over time.
Ramirez's, I just don't care about. A drunk frat boy exposing himself at a college kegger. Stupid and gross but 20ish college age folks tend to be stupid, gross drunks and often grow out of it.

The rape allegation, even if her memories are exaggerated over time, there's no way it started as something not disgustingly bad. So, either one of them is lying or delusional. It also seem likely that enough of her story could be corroborated and if so, I would want a judge who's rulings I liked removed from the bench and not confirmed for the bench in first place.
 
Two issues.

She did not want to fly to the committee because she is afraid of flying. Then admits to flying a lot. Especially on holiday.

She is a smart professor saying she did a risk/reward analysis in deciding to come forward. Yet she seems like a timid backwards woman in trying to get her story to the right people.

I do not know what to make of it. Some people are lapping it up.

I am reminded of the fake news story of when Jesus said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" and one disciple reportedly whined "Heck, Jesus, you always get to go first."
 
ahhell said:
I am not concerned about Ford's or Ramirez's accusations.
Ford's is very consistent with the way memories fail either conflating events, people, trauma becoming exaggerated over time.
Ramirez's, I just don't care about. A drunk frat boy exposing himself at a college kegger. Stupid and gross but 20ish college age folks tend to be stupid, gross drunks and often grow out of it.

The rape allegation, even if her memories are exaggerated over time, there's no way it started as something not disgustingly bad. So, either one of them is lying or delusional. It also seem likely that enough of her story could be corroborated and if so, I would want a judge who's rulings I liked removed from the bench and not confirmed for the bench in first place.
Click to expand...
Does it concern you that he testified the former two never happened at all?
 
Minoosh said:
More:
And that creepy "Renate alumni" on the yearbook page of the football team (including Kavanaugh). The woman in question signed a letter of support for Kavanaugh, before she was aware of the yearbook references (there were at least 14 of them). After she found out she was obviously hurt by the comments.

Can anyone come up with an innocent explanation of this?
Click to expand...

I might but I don't want to.
 
PartSkeptic said:
Two issues.

She did not want to fly to the committee because she is afraid of flying. Then admits to flying a lot. Especially on holiday.

She is a smart professor saying she did a risk/reward analysis in deciding to come forward. Yet she seems like a timid backwards woman in trying to get her story to the right people.

I do not know what to make of it. Some people are lapping it up.

I am reminded of the fake news story of when Jesus said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" and one disciple reportedly whined "Heck, Jesus, you always get to go first."
Click to expand...

For the flying part, do you like fivethirtyeight? They posted this

In a quick search I haven’t found a lot about situation-specific flying fears. But I did find a typology of fear of flying, based on surveys of more than 400 people who had sought treatment for that fear. (An action that already puts them at a higher level of fear than, say, myself — someone who really hates being on planes but isn’t affected enough by that fear to go see a psychologist.) And from that study, it seems like it is pretty normal to be really afraid of flying — and do it anyway. At least sometimes.

Of the people in this study, 83 percent of men and 90 percent of women experienced severe anxiety to outright panic at the thought of flying. Yet the vast majority had flown in the past two years. Twenty-three percent had flown in the past year — about the same percent as those who had avoided flying for a decade. The same study shows that fear of flying interacts with (and can be exacerbated by) other kinds of fears and anxieties. Basically, this suggests it’s just not that weird to force yourself on to a plane to go on vacation, and feel a lot more apprehensive about getting on a plane to go do something you’re terrified of — like testify before Congress.
Click to expand...

Posted by
 
Minoosh said:
And yet they disagree 5-4 all the time, offering their soundest reasoning.

At this point I have more confidence in Judge Judy than those folks.
Click to expand...
Clear cut cases of Constitutional law usually don't make it to the Supreme Court. It's a court of final appeal for all the edge cases and gray areas that lower courts are unable to resolve. The goal isn't to get agreement. The goal is to formalize disagreement in a way that both represents the best effort to resolve the disagreement, and guarantees a decision regardless. E.g., by putting the matter to a vote by an odd number of panelists.
 
Bob001 said:
Not for felony sexual assault in Maryland. Kavanaugh theoretically could still be investigated and prosecuted.
https://www.salon.com/2018/09/21/rachel-maddow-claims-kavanaugh-could-be-thrown-in-jail_partner/
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profil...-brett-kavanaugh-face-criminal-charges-maybe/
Click to expand...
I decided to look it up in the Maryland lawbooks, via Google. I need to go back to work, and it's a bit complicated, but the short answer seems to be that there is no statute of limitations.
 
Bob001 said:
Not for felony sexual assault in Maryland. Kavanaugh theoretically could still be investigated and prosecuted.
https://www.salon.com/2018/09/21/rachel-maddow-claims-kavanaugh-could-be-thrown-in-jail_partner/
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profil...-brett-kavanaugh-face-criminal-charges-maybe/
Click to expand...
Well I'm not thinking so much for Kavanaugh (where they probably couldn't gather enough evidence to demonstrate "beyond a reasonable doubt" that Kavanaugh was guilty.)

I'm thinking of those people who have come forward to say "I was the one who did it, not Kavanaugh"... which is an admission of guilt. If prosecutors go to them and say "You will be charged... do you still say you did it" they may see them back off, and say "Ok, it wasn't me... I just wanted my name in the paper".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom