New SCOTUS Judge

Status
Not open for further replies.
Who would you ladies and gentlemen prefer to replace Ginsburg should her position become available during Trumps administration? Very real possibility.
 
River said:
Who would you ladies and gentlemen prefer to replace Ginsburg should her position become available during Trumps administration? Very real possibility.
Click to expand...

If i was president, this is how I would do it.

I would have experts conduct a grand survey of legal thought in this country and establish the schools of thought and their proportion of adherents.

Then assess the current court and where that distribution falls relative to the top legal thought at large.

Then I would nominate the most qualified person of the legal thought that makes the court more proportional.
 
The Big Dog said:
I take the time to type out the fact that the committee, both sides are represented by staff lawyers, who are trained to and do routinely investigate witnesses, and this is the response I get.... oy vey.

Do you really think that the FBI would do more than interview the principal witnesses and review the documents proffered to them? they are going to get to "I don't remember where and when it took place," and talk to PJ and Leland and hit a hard stop.
Click to expand...

America has lots of lawyers. A law degree doesn't especially qualify anybody to interrogate witnesses. The average big-city detective would be better at it. The FBI has the legal authority to follow leads anywhere. Whether they would exercise it is a different question.

The key issue is that committee staffers are hired by the committee majority, who are Republicans who want Kavanaugh confirmed. The FBI could be relied on to conduct an independent investigation.
 
Belz... said:
Was he under oath yesterday?
Click to expand...

dmaker said:
I believed the testimony provided yesterday was under oath? Was it not? I watched it periodically from work. I missed opening remarks, so I cannot say I saw any oath administered. Perhaps I was mistaken.
Click to expand...

Yes, people giving testimony in these hearings do swear an oath. Here is an article on the hearing with a photo of Kavanaugh with his right hand up taking the oath.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/s...anaugh-as-flake-says-hell-back-him-2018-09-28
 
Bob001 said:
America has lots of lawyers. A law degree doesn't especially qualify anybody to interrogate witnesses. The average big-city detective would be better at it. The FBI has the legal authority to follow leads anywhere. Whether they would exercise it is a different question.

The key issue is that committee staffers are hired by the committee majority, who are Republicans who want Kavanaugh confirmed. The FBI could be relied on to conduct an independent investigation.
Click to expand...

No, the minority has their own staff counsel who are also lawyers and who are permitted indeed encouraged to participate in the investigation.

their lawyers refused to interview PJ and Leland, that is the key issue.
 
TofuFighter said:
<snip>

Can a sitting SC justice be removed on criminal grounds? Would that not be exponentially worse for trump and the GOP than withdrawing him and finding another Gorsuch?
Click to expand...


He can be removed for virtually any grounds which the two chambers of Congress agree to, criminal or not.

But I think that may be the only way he can be removed from the position of Supreme Court Justice.

However ... the better question is whether he can be charged and convicted of crimes by state or federal court. I don't know the answer to this.

It might well be that he could find himself behind bars in a Maryland prison and still be a SCOTUS Justice.

That would certainly be interesting. Maybe he could get work release to go to sit at the Court.

;)
 
The Big Dog said:
Really telling that rather than providing a cite, you deleted that one word from my post and replaced it with "....."

Which is hilarious.

Chalk that up as another lie.
Click to expand...

It's not a surprise that you should struggle to understand something so simple as the concept of me commenting on one of your two paragraphs. You know, the one I quoted.

Oh, and to make an accusation of lying where I simply asked what you were talking about, with no assertion at all? That's just hilarious.
 
Last edited:
quadraginta said:
This seems to be a common weakness for right-wingnut conservatives. Citing sources which actually disprove whatever claim they are making.
Click to expand...

Yeah, except for the fact that there were all those other people there and no mention of any girls...
 
BobTheCoward said:
If i was president, this is how I would do it.

I would have experts conduct a grand survey of legal thought in this country and establish the schools of thought and their proportion of adherents.

Then assess the current court and where that distribution falls relative to the top legal thought at large.

Then I would nominate the most qualified person of the legal thought that makes the court more proportional.
Click to expand...

A rational way to go about it.
 
MikeG said:
It's not a surprise that you should struggle to understand something so simple as the concept of me commenting on one of your two paragraphs. You know, the one I quoted.
Click to expand...

It's not a surprise that you made up a false claim, and then deleted the word "cite?" when 'responding" to my post.

It is surprising that you brought it up again after being caught out in a series of misrepresentations, because once you hit bottom, one should not really continue digging.
 
uke2se said:
No, the answer is, always was and will always be "whatever pwns the libs". It's a very simple (in every interpretation of the word) worldview.
Click to expand...

48% of evangelical Christians think that Kavanaugh should be approved <i>even if the accusations against him are true</i>!

Only 36% say he shouldn't be approved (the rest do not have an answer).

These are evangelical Christians who would accept someone who is guilty (not just accused, but actually guilty of) sexual assault for a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court.

Let's just say, they have abandoned all concept of morals.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom