New SCOTUS Judge

Status
Not open for further replies.
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
As i say, it's up to you how you deal with being informed by people that you've been saying something that's racist. Were it me, and were it people from every political viewpoint who were uniting to tell me that I was wrong, I think I might take a moment for reflection.
Click to expand...

Worth repeating. People from the right, left and center called her on it and she decided to blame everyone else rather than reevaluate her actions.
 
To the blinder wearers who just crawled out from under a damp rock and into the light of real world daylight:

In '91 Anita Hill was granted an FBI investigation (lauded as right and proper by both Grassley and Hatch, at the time), and several witnesses were permitted to testify to the Senate on her behalf. And for only verbal harrassment, as I understand it (no inappropriate physical contact.)

Today Christine Blasey Ford is not to have the courtesy of an FBI investigation she requests, nor is permitted to have other witnesses testify. For the more serious charge of attempted rape.

The declarations or declamations of any witnesses, as far as I understand, have not been made under oath. Until this is done, less weight obviously attends their word. And so if a true search for the truth is the aim, all parties must testify under oath, with perjury being of real consequence. The Kavanaugh supporters squaking about and championing the various denials that are made to the press as being acceptable and final testimony are risibly disingenuous.

What was standard practice in regard to investigation by a competent, apolitical body (the FBI) is suddenly 'inappropriate' in this instance. And now no other witnesses--on either side--are permitted. This cannot other than suggest that an effort to hide the past is underway. The GOP are blatantly transparent in their fear of having bad things come to light. They are desperate to ram this confirmation through before the stench surrounding Trump's pick sickens those few Majority senators that might actually vote based on a fair assessment.

And so it's out the window with all established regular order. Or rather, a sham pretense of consideration is grudgingly established, only because to do less would be an obscene dereliction of due process. And that's after already having selectively held back on a mountain of Kavanaugh's writings and communications.

As McConnel damn well knew and warned, this guy's a problem. Who should be properly investigated and, if found guilty of perjury and/or sexual assault/rape, must be disbarred.
 
Lurch said:
To the blinder wearers who just crawled out from under a damp rock and into the light of real world daylight:

In '91 Anita Hill was granted an FBI investigation (lauded as right and proper by both Grassley and Hatch, at the time), and several witnesses were permitted to testify to the Senate on her behalf. And for only verbal harrassment, as I understand it (no inappropriate physical contact.)

Today Christine Blasey Ford is not to have the courtesy of an FBI investigation she requests, nor is permitted to have other witnesses testify. For the more serious charge of attempted rape.

The declarations or declamations of any witnesses, as far as I understand, have not been made under oath. Until this is done, less weight obviously attends their word. And so if a true search for the truth is the aim, all parties must testify under oath, with perjury being of real consequence. The Kavanaugh supporters squaking about and championing the various denials that are made to the press as being acceptable and final testimony are risibly disingenuous.

What was standard practice in regard to investigation by a competent, apolitical body (the FBI) is suddenly 'inappropriate' in this instance. And now no other witnesses--on either side--are permitted. This cannot other than suggest that an effort to hide the past is underway. The GOP are blatantly transparent in their fear of having bad things come to light. They are desperate to ram this confirmation through before the stench surrounding Trump's pick sickens those few Majority senators that might actually vote based on a fair assessment.

And so it's out the window with all established regular order. Or rather, a sham pretense of consideration is grudgingly established, only because to do less would be an obscene dereliction of due process. And that's after already having selectively held back on a mountain of Kavanaugh's writings and communications.

As McConnel damn well knew and warned, this guy's a problem. Who should be properly investigated and, if found guilty of perjury and/or sexual assault/rape, must be disbarred.
Click to expand...

:dl:
 
The Big Dog said:
Yes, and the ones that Ronan talked to actually denied it.
Click to expand...

I've been thinking about this. I hope you're right. I think I would like it to be exposed as a bald-faced lie.

I don't like the idea of going back to just barely past childhood to dredge up dirt on political opponents. I don't want this sort of character assassination to become the new normal. I don't want good candidates to decide not to accept nominations because they know that one time when they were 18 years old they did something that they shouldn't have.

Moreover, I want Supreme Court justices who are just the sort of judges that Kavanaugh says he is. I want impartial arbiters of the law, not looking to impose an agenda of their own, or looking to usurp the legislative power.


However, my gut tells me that something else is afoot here. My gut tells me that Kavanaugh really was a drunken, boorish, lout, who really did do outrageous things to women in his youth, and who is lying about it today. My gut also tells me that he is not an impartial arbiter of the law, but is a right wing judicial activist in the mold of Clarence Thomas or Robert Bork. (Yes, Bork was a judicial activist. He couldn't wait to get on the court to start overturning all sorts of laws duly passed by the legislature. That, and not any Ted Kennedy grandstanding, is why he was voted down.) My gut tells me that he will say or do what it takes to achieve his ends. Today, his ends are power and prestige. At eighteen, his ends were a bit more primal.


So, my problem with Kavanaugh remains not that he was an ass when he was eighteen, but that I think he's lying about it today, and I think he's lying about the really important stuff as well.


So, anyway, I would like to think you are right, that this is just a pack of lies thrown at a good man, and it will be shown that he really is someone of character and integrity, and he goes on to display that character and integrity as a Supreme Court justice. Yeah, that's what I would like. We'll have to wait a long time before we find out about the second part, how he would act as a Supreme Court justice. However, if we find out, via witness testimony, that he was the sort of kid who would shove his penis in a drunk girl's face, and then lie about it as an adult, he shouldn't be given the chance to prove himself on the high court.
 
eeyore1954 said:
Do you feel if the accusations are untrue the dignified thing to do is to withdraw?
Click to expand...

yes.
Because as part of the Judiciary, it is his job to maintain the reputation of the Courts and thus the people's trust in the system.
If he knows that the Supreme Court would lose credibility with him on it, it would show great character for him to withdraw, even when he himself knows he has done nothing wrong.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
yes.
Because as part of the Judiciary, it is his job to maintain the reputation of the Courts and thus the people's trust in the system.
If he knows that the Supreme Court would lose credibility with him on it, it would show great character for him to withdraw, even when he himself knows he has done nothing wrong.
Click to expand...

He would go back to being one of 36 appeals court judges plus be a republican martyr. Another equally qualified person would take his place. There is a lot of upside to it
 
BobTheCoward said:
He would go back to being one of 36 appeals court judges plus be a republican martyr. Another equally qualified person would take his place. There is a lot of upside to it
Click to expand...

exactly.

Problem is: for 30 years or so he has been groomed to one day sit on the Supreme Court: Evangelicals and Federalists have invested a lot in him. They would consider him a failure if he gave up the fight for some noble personal reason that goes against their Greater Good of overturning Chevron Deference.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
exactly.

Problem is: for 30 years or so he has been groomed to one day sit on the Supreme Court: Evangelicals and Federalists have invested a lot in him. They would consider him a failure if he gave up the fight for some noble personal reason that goes against their Greater Good of overturning Chevron Deference.
Click to expand...

It's not like the Federalist Society doesn't have other judges to select from. They have a pretty good operation going farming judges.

They select dozens of likely lads every year, follow them through prep school, college, the bar, etc. Always encouraging them to be more conservative, more right-wing, but to hide it under a veneer of objectivity. They weed the list down, removing people who do things like provably have sex with children, get into drunken car crashes, or show some sort of concern for American workers. Out of hundreds of potentials, they might only have a handful of names on their well cultivated list at any time, waiting for the alignment of a GOP President, a GOP Senate, and an empty seat on the Supreme Court. Then they go to the President with their list, say "Pick a name. The ones near the top are better.", and they are off to the races.

This time around however, there was a complicating factor. President Trump might be indicted. So the President wants a judge who will say that a sitting President cannot be indicted, and is also capable of pardoning himself. Kavanaugh said yes, so Trump gave him the nod, even though he was at the bottom of the Federalist Society's list.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
exactly.

Problem is: for 30 years or so he has been groomed to one day sit on the Supreme Court: Evangelicals and Federalists have invested a lot in him. They would consider him a failure if he gave up the fight for some noble personal reason that goes against their Greater Good of overturning Chevron Deference.
Click to expand...

This is what gets me. The evidence of the grooming is there in plain site, going back to the Starr days. And I can't abide the golden boy phenomenon.
 
Slings and Arrows said:
To be precise, a *serial* gang rapist and violent attempted murderer.

But today is only Monday, by this Friday the story will have morphed into puppy and kitten killer.
Click to expand...

It seems like I have a higher opinion of him than you do. Yet I'm in favour of an investigation and you are not.
 
River said:
Another good question might be: Why did Feinstein wait so long to bring this letter out? Apparently it was hand delivered to her office July 30th? That doesnt sound right does it?
Click to expand...

The Great Zaganza said:
might it have been because Ford wanted to remain anonymous, and Feinstein respected that?
Click to expand...

Feinstein may have also realized out the accusation is essentially unverifiable. She may have released later as a last option or someone on her staff may have released for the same reason.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom