New SCOTUS Judge II: The Wrath of Kavanaugh

[theprestige]

I'm pretty sure that if Kavanaugh had chosen to present a stoic front to the committee, progressives would have found that equally disqualifying.

"Doesn't he care?"

"A real man would have shown some upsetness at being accused of such things."

"Even a rapist would be smart enough to act outraged - if they were at all human."

"His robotic demeanor indicates exactly the kind of callous indifference to human suffering that we cannot tolerate in a high court justice."

Etc.

 

[Belz...]

You forgot already?

Sorry but the way you phrased it didn't ring a bell.

Still, since I'm sure you can imagine a reasonable explanation for the discrepancy, there's no reason to think she lied.

First off, in regards to "direct", no, your experience is not direct. You saw him on TV, just like almost everyone else.

That is still direct experience of his behaviour. Indirect would be if someone described his statements to you.

Second, and more importantly, to the extent that watching him on TV suffices to form an opinion of him, you're actually proving my point. It doesn't take legal expertise to form an opinion of his demeanor.

No, the point, which I keep explaining to you, now for the fourth time, is that these legal experts know the sort of behaviour one must show in order to be an impartial judge.

I proved that other people have used "boof" to mean fart, and you're talking about universes with different physical laws? How desperate are you?

Seriously? Now I have to explain what hyperbole is? At this point it's clear that your ideology has warped your reasoning so much that you can't even understand basic figures of speech. Either that or you're pretending to not understand so you don't have to address the point.

Once again the point is that the mere possibility or another explanation doesn't mean that it's reasonable to accept that explanation.

In a politically charged case where the 2000 doctors had no direct experience with the candidate in question?

Then the ABA's opinion is also irrelevant.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I'm pretty sure that if Kavanaugh had chosen to present a stoic front to the committee, progressives would have found that equally disqualifying.

"Doesn't he care?"

"A real man would have shown some upsetness at being accused of such things."

"Even a rapist would be smart enough to act outraged - if they were at all human."

"His robotic demeanor indicates exactly the kind of callous indifference to human suffering that we cannot tolerate in a high court justice."

Etc.

I know it's as if there's isn't a good way to be a sexual predator.

 

[Belz...]

I reject your ridiculous premise that people will be screwed over.

Oh, of course you do. I'm sure you think telling people who they a right to love or removing women's reproductive rights is only fair, in your world.

 

[The Big Dog]

Latest from the creepy porn lawyer:

Avenatti is already campaigning for his 2020 presidential run. Hopefully, the Dimms will make him their nominee.

Screaming into the void. His play after the FBI and Judiciary rebuffed him was to put his "client" on TV where she completely **** the bed.

Then he finds someone who has been "good friends" with both Ford and his client for "decades." After which Ford reiterated that she doesn't know His client.

So Thirsty, so stupid

 

[Ziggurat]

But it does take expert experience to evaluate what behavior is appropriate for a judge and what isn't, generally

I keep seeing this claim, but no explanation for why a judge's temperament must be evaluated differently than anyone else in a position of authority.

Moreover, to the extent that it is any different, law professors are not experts on judicial temperament. Law professors spend most of their time teaching and doing research. They spend much less time in front of a judge than trial lawyers do. So why is this petition just for law professors? That makes no sense, if actual experience with judges is what matters. But it isn't, because it's all an argument from authority fallacy.

 

[Belz...]

One reason why expert experience is necessary sometimes is that the experts can draw on past cases from their experience.

Another reason is that they can tell you if another expert is full of ****.

 

[Mumbles]

At this point I think the Leftists would be against Kavanaugh if Feinstein & Hirono literally conspired with Ford during the hearing and the FBI report completely exonerated him. In fact, maybe it would be better if they did and then Spartacus could moon everyone while pointing out it would have been against precedent to have allowed a competent and extremely well qualified candidate, according to his imaginary friend.

I very rarely bother reading what this one writes, and neither should anyone else. But I saw the quote, so I repeat:

The GOP has little in the way of policy aside from "more money for the wealthy" and "the opposite of whatever dems like."

Bolding added

 

[Belz...]

https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/1048211299304443905



Document embedded in tweet.

Oops! It's possible the ABA's expert opinion suddenly becomes irrelevant!

 

[acbytesla]

I'm pretty sure that if Kavanaugh had chosen to present a stoic front to the committee, progressives would have found that equally disqualifying.

"Doesn't he care?"

"A real man would have shown some upsetness at being accused of such things."

"Even a rapist would be smart enough to act outraged - if they were at all human."

"His robotic demeanor indicates exactly the kind of callous indifference to human suffering that we cannot tolerate in a high court justice."

Etc.

Uh no.

 

[The Big Dog]

I very rarely bother reading what this one writes, and neither should anyone else. But I saw the quote, so I repeat:
Bolding added

Sage advice.

 

[theprestige]

Seriously, what is it with you guys and using childish names for people?

Maybe you should ask these guys.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I'm pretty sure that if Kavanaugh had chosen to present a stoic front to the committee, progressives would have found that equally disqualifying.

"Doesn't he care?"

"A real man would have shown some upsetness at being accused of such things."

"Even a rapist would be smart enough to act outraged - if they were at all human."

"His robotic demeanor indicates exactly the kind of callous indifference to human suffering that we cannot tolerate in a high court justice."

Etc.

I don't think so. It is exactly what everyone expected. A dry, unemotional denial while not looking like a prick would have been par for the course.

 

[theprestige]

I don't think so. It is exactly what everyone expected. A dry, unemotional denial while not looking like a prick would have been par for the course.

With any luck, the next couple years will give us a basis for comparison.

 

[Ziggurat]

Still, since I'm sure you can imagine a reasonable explanation for the discrepancy, there's no reason to think she lied.

If you want to make an argument for an alternative, then actually make it.

That is still direct experience of his behaviour. Indirect would be if someone described his statements to you.

So you're going with a semantic quibble about what counts as "direct", ignoring the fact that neither you nor they have ever actually interacted with Kavanaugh, and pretending as if actual interaction doesn't make any difference. Winner of an argument there, Belz.

No, the point, which I keep explaining to you, now for the fourth time, is that these legal experts know the sort of behaviour one must show in order to be an impartial judge.

But even that is wrong. First off, as I mentioned above, law professors have less experience with judges than trial lawyers, so if experience with judges is actually relevant then the petition wouldn't have been restricted to law profs. Second, people behave differently in different circumstances. To the extent that being a legal expert gives you unique insight into judicial behavior in court, it does not give you any unique insight into the behavior of judges outside of court. And this was absolutely outside of court.

This is an appeal to authority fallacy. You can repeat it as many times as you want, but it will remain an appeal to authority fallacy.

Then the ABA's opinion is also irrelevant.

As I have pointed out and you ignored, the ABA's track record of evaluating judges demonstrates a capacity to do so fairly. This evaluation is limited in scope, and one can certainly have legitimate reason to oppose a nominee regardless of their rating. But it is still fundamentally a different sort of evaluation than this petition. If you want to dispute the ABA's track record, go ahead (but good luck). If you want to argue that Kavanaugh's faults lie outside the scope of their ratings, that's fine too. But you're not being remotely honest if you pretend it's exactly the same thing as this petition. It simply isn't.

 

[acbytesla]

On the one hand I think Kavanaugh is horrible and definitely should not become a Supreme Court Justice. But OTOH, while his replacement nomination might not be a liar and a pig, he surely would be similar in his decisions.

So, it very well may be this is a case where the loser is the winner and vice versa. That this will stir up the women's vote leading to a blue tidal wave. We will see.

 

[Dr. Keith]

With any luck, the next couple years will give us a basis for comparison.

Really? I think we have decades of experience where men have not been much criticized for just denying and moving on. Why would you ignore that when trying to predict a reaction?

 

[sylvan8798]

At this point I think the Leftists would be against Kavanaugh if Feinstein & Hirono literally conspired with Ford during the hearing and the FBI report completely exonerated him. In fact, maybe it would be better if they did and then Spartacus could moon everyone while pointing out it would have been against precedent to have allowed a competent and extremely well qualified candidate, according to his imaginary friend.

His imaginary friend "Jesus"? or some other imaginary friend?

 

[Dr. Keith]

On the one hand I think Kavanaugh is horrible and definitely should not become a Supreme Court Justice. But OTOH, while his replacement nomination might not be a liar and a pig, he surely would be similar in his decisions.

So, it very well may be this is a case where the loser is the winner and vice versa. That this will stir up the women's vote leading to a blue tidal wave. We will see.

There is another argument that he just isn't much better than mediocre. He hasn't really distinguished himself in any positive way in the profession compared to the other people who have gotten onto the bench.

I think there is a small chance that he may even be impeached or forced to resign. Not for what he has done, but just because he is the first person to be nominated who seems to care more about themselves than the court. He is the kind of person who may trip over his own self interest when trying to step up to such heights.

 

[The Big Dog]

His imaginary friend "Jesus"? or some other imaginary friend?

His imaginary friend T-Bone, the tough but gentle drug pusher who Spartacus befriended.