New SCOTUS Judge II: The Wrath of Kavanaugh

The Big Dog said:
ha! You got me! Who is the goose?

:thumbsup:TBD:thumbsup:

ABA committee gives Kavanaugh a well-qualified rating
Click to expand...
Yet back when Kavanaugh was first appointed to the court of appeals, the ABA was a bit more skeptical.

https://www.dailyherald.com/news/20...ion-had-concerns-about-kavanaugh-12-years-ago
...in May 2006, as Republicans hoped to finally push Kavanaugh's nomination across the finish line, the ABA downgraded its endorsement. The group's judicial investigator had recently interviewed dozens of lawyers, judges and others who had worked with Kavanaugh, the ABA announced at the time, and some of them raised red flags about "his professional experience and the question of his freedom from bias and open-mindedness." "One interviewee remained concerned about the nominee's ability to be balanced and fair should he assume a federal judgeship," the ABA committee chairman wrote to senators in 2006. "Another interviewee echoed essentially the same thoughts: '(He is) immovable and very stubborn and frustrating to deal with on some issues.'" A particular judge had told the ABA that Kavanaugh had been "sanctimonious" during an oral argument in court. Several lawyers considered him inexperienced, and one said he "dissembled" in the courtroom.
...
...it downgraded the rating of the nominee to simply "qualified" -- meaning he met the ABA's standards to become a judge but was not necessarily an outstanding candidate.

Hmmmm... sanctimonious... reminds me of his testimony during the hearings. So, he's showing at least some of the same negative traits now that got him downgraded to just 'qualified' in the past.
 
Segnosaur said:
Yet back when Kavanaugh was first appointed to the court of appeals, the ABA was a bit more skeptical.

https://www.dailyherald.com/news/20...ion-had-concerns-about-kavanaugh-12-years-ago
...in May 2006, as Republicans hoped to finally push Kavanaugh's nomination across the finish line, the ABA downgraded its endorsement. The group's judicial investigator had recently interviewed dozens of lawyers, judges and others who had worked with Kavanaugh, the ABA announced at the time, and some of them raised red flags about "his professional experience and the question of his freedom from bias and open-mindedness." "One interviewee remained concerned about the nominee's ability to be balanced and fair should he assume a federal judgeship," the ABA committee chairman wrote to senators in 2006. "Another interviewee echoed essentially the same thoughts: '(He is) immovable and very stubborn and frustrating to deal with on some issues.'" A particular judge had told the ABA that Kavanaugh had been "sanctimonious" during an oral argument in court. Several lawyers considered him inexperienced, and one said he "dissembled" in the courtroom.
...
...it downgraded the rating of the nominee to simply "qualified" -- meaning he met the ABA's standards to become a judge but was not necessarily an outstanding candidate.

Hmmmm... sanctimonious... reminds me of his testimony during the hearings. So, he's showing at least some of the same negative traits now that got him downgraded to just 'qualified' in the past.
Click to expand...

I guess to the leftists it will always be 2006.

Just a few short years before Ford gets triggered by her desire for two front doors into mentioning something she never mentioned before.
 
NEW: The White House has told the FBI that agents can interview anyone necessary to complete the Kavanaugh background check.

#MAGA!
 
The Big Dog said:
NEW: The White House has told the FBI that agents can interview anyone necessary to complete the Kavanaugh background check.

#MAGA!
Click to expand...

OLD: They (Donald Trump) said that before, only to be contradicted by his own aides (Conway), and by off the record statements from FBI people and leaked documents.

This time he is just kowtowing to Mitch McConnell:

"I want them to do a very comprehensive investigation, whatever that means according to the Senators and the Republicans and the Republican majority,
Click to expand...
 
The Big Dog said:
NEW: The White House has told the FBI that agents can interview anyone necessary to complete the Kavanaugh background check.

#MAGA!
Click to expand...


"It is outrageous that my client has not been contacted by the FBI because Trump is instructing them not to. He is trying to ram through a nomination by purposely preventing the truth from being known. This is a threat to our very democracy."
-- Michael Avenatti (Oct 1, 2018)
 
The issue of the assault cannot be confirmed one way or the other. I highly doubt the FBI investigation will turn up anything new on that. Therefore, the assault is not really the overriding reason for me for BK not to be confirmed. It's that BK lied to the SJC about the extent of his drinking despite what idiot Trump claims. There are just too many credible witnesses to his heavy drinking to believe Kav's version. Add his false testimony regarding the yearbook and it cements his perjury. That alone disqualifies him from the SC. How anyone can think otherwise is an example of putting politics before everything else.
 
First it's a narrow, limited scope investigation. Now Trump says the FBI has free rein. At the WH, one hand doesn't know what the other one is doing from hour to hour. Get it together, for Christ's sake.
 
The Big Dog said:
NEW: The White House has told the FBI that agents can interview anyone necessary to complete the Kavanaugh background check.

#MAGA!
Click to expand...

Has the White House actually done this, or did Trump just say or tweet something? The President lies like a rug, and any statement out of his mouth is pretty much meaningless in terms of effect.

This is why I don't get upset about his insane tweets and incoherent rambling "speeches". Why get angry about what he says, when what he actually does is so much worse?
 
Dr. Keith said:
Sad that this was required. Should have been the original instructions.
Click to expand...

“Whatever he may seem to us, he is yet a servant of the Law; that is, he belongs to the Law and as such is set beyond human judgment.”
― Franz Kafka , The Trial
 
Stacyhs said:
First it's a narrow, limited scope investigation. Now Trump says the FBI has free rein. At the WH, one hand doesn't know what the other one is doing from hour to hour. Get it together, for Christ's sake.
Click to expand...


"First it's a narrow, limited scope investigation."

Who told you that? Fake News NBC?
 
Dr. Keith said:
NEW: The White House has told the FBI that agents can interview anyone necessary to complete the Kavanaugh background check.
Click to expand...
Sad that this was required. Should have been the original instructions.
Click to expand...
This is of course assuming it is true. TBD did not provide a reference for the claim that "agents can interview anyone", and we have seen it before where the white house makes a claim in public but they do just the opposite in private. We've seen them claim it would be a proper investigation before, only to find out that certain people aren't going to be interviewed and certain claims won't be followed up on.
 
Stacyhs said:
The issue of the assault cannot be confirmed one way or the other.
Click to expand...
While we may never get complete solid 100% confirmation (such as video evidence), the point is to determine which of the conflicting stories is more likely to be accurate.

If (for example) they interview Judge's former girlfriend and she manages to point the FBI to people who may have been at the wild sex parties that Kavanaugh was supposedly at, they may uncover additional witnesses. If they talk to people who may have been at the party where Ford was assaulted, they may be able to find information that contradicts Kavanaugh's claims.

Now, of course this may end up with the FBI saying "Our investigation shows Kavanaugh probably did it" and the republicans STILL voting to confirm him, because reasons. That's the way they are.
 
Segnosaur said:
This is of course assuming it is true. TBD did not provide a reference for the claim that "agents can interview anyone", and we have seen it before where the white house makes a claim in public but they do just the opposite in private. We've seen them claim it would be a proper investigation before, only to find out that certain people aren't going to be interviewed and certain claims won't be followed up on.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

forgot how many people don't have access to google around here.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/01/us/politics/trump-fbi-kavanaugh.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom