kavanaugh

[Got Stripers]

Even if you take the sexual assault out of the equation, does he seem to have the temperament and cool to handle some of the most challenging decisions to come; not to mention the blatantly partisan views he ranted about. Sure everyone on this board and the general public are entitled to those partisan views, but the high court is not supposed to have those partisan views.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

does he seem to have the temperament and cool to handle some of the most challenging decisions to come

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

this is stupid...stop repeating talking points...this is the left repeatedly kicking someone in the balls and mocking them for crying

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by scottw

this is stupid...stop repeating talking points...this is the left repeatedly kicking someone in the balls and mocking them for crying

I have no problem with him crying or showing real emotion, clearly that would be normal under the circumstances. I have issues with the opening rant, which may have been more for Trump or his GOP supporters benefit, but was IMHO blatantly partisan and the suggested conspiracy is nuts.

Ford wanted no publicity, in fact the letter was penned when K was only on the short list and not even nominated. Did someone leak it for political reasons, obviously and that I’m sure is a shock to you as it’s so unlike the norm in DC.

That doesn’t diminish the credibility of the original accusations or the reasonable request for an FBI investigation in light of them, no big Clinton deep state conspiracy here🤣
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

but was IMHO blatantly partisan and the suggested conspiracy is nuts.

[/i][/size]

it's been elected democrats MET AND ORGANIZED, the leftist nuts in costumes and tee shirts, left wing organizations and lawyers and leftist media that have assaulted him since he was nominated....that's why it would be absolutely partisan,,,,good grief there was absolutely a "conspiracy" to thwart his nomination...they didn't hide it at all

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Even if you take the sexual assault out of the equation, does he seem to have the temperament and cool to handle some of the most challenging decisions to come;

Apparently, his years of service on the Court shows that he does have the judicial temperament.

not to mention the blatantly partisan views he ranted about. Sure everyone on this board and the general public are entitled to those partisan views, but the high court is not supposed to have those partisan views.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It is ridiculous to say or think that SCOTUS Justices are not entitled to have partisan views. I don't doubt at all that they all do. It's that they must not insert those views in their judicial thinking or decisions.

It is curious to me that you think they shouldn't have partisan views. If you believe that it is proper to interpret the Constitution by personal views of justice instead of always by the meaning of the text, wouldn't those personal views of justice influence which party they supported and voted for. And, therefor, wouldn't their partisan views help define their view of justice.

Indeed, non-textualist Progressive Justices often do adjudicate by philosophical notions that match Progressive party ideology rather than on the original meaning of the text.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Even if you take the sexual assault out of the equation, does he seem to have the temperament and cool to handle some of the most challenging decisions to come; not to mention the blatantly partisan views he ranted about. Sure everyone on this board and the general public are entitled to those partisan views, but the high court is not supposed to have those partisan views.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

SCOTUS justices are allowed to have the same prejudices and biases as any other human being, as long as the leave them at the door when they put their robes on. Ginsberg and Sotomayor don’t show bias in their personal lives?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

SCOTUS justices are allowed to have the same prejudices and biases as any other human being, as long as the leave them at the door when they put their robes on. Ginsberg and Sotomayor don’t show bias in their personal lives?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's my main point, not only did he not leave them at the door, he acted like Trump had possessed his body. Keep in mind he's interviewing for the job, so that angry rant was so wrong for the job he was applying for. I'm not stupid guys, everyone has the right to have a political party and express their leaning towards the left or right, but the decisions at the highest level are never or should never be made based on what their party would want to see.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

That's my main point, not only did he not leave them at the door, he acted like Trump had possessed his body. Keep in mind he's interviewing for the job, so that angry rant was so wrong for the job he was applying for. I'm not stupid guys, everyone has the right to have a political party and express their leaning towards the left or right, but the decisions at the highest level are never or should never be made based on what their party would want to see.

this is a joke right?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

That's my main point, not only did he not leave them at the door, he acted like Trump had possessed his body. Keep in mind he's interviewing for the job, so that angry rant was so wrong for the job he was applying for. I'm not stupid guys, everyone has the right to have a political party and express their leaning towards the left or right, but the decisions at the highest level are never or should never be made based on what their party would want to see.

His "angry rant," as you characterize it, was not a lie. It was not a judicial interpretation. It was not a legal judgment. It was defending himself against those who are trying to destroy him. The whole charade, as Lindsey Graham rightly called what the Dems were doing, was a politicized attempt to stop Kavanaugh and hold off the nomination until after the midterms. Professor Fords accusation should not have been part of the procedures without being substantiated first. The idea that an unsubstantiated, uncorroborated charge should be used to stop the procedure, and then to delay and delay and delay it, should be, and is, permissible to anyone, including judges, to call it out. Defending yourself against your accusers and those who wish to stop you in a job interview does not disqualify a judge from telling the truth.

It would be unconscionable of a SCOTUS Justice to withhold the truth simply to be politically correct.

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by detbuch

His "angry rant," as you characterize it, was not a lie. It was not a judicial interpretation. It was not a legal judgment. It was defending himself against those who are trying to destroy him. The whole charade, as Lindsey Graham rightly called what the Dems were doing, was a politicized attempt to stop Kavanaugh and hold off the nomination until after the midterms. Professor Fords accusation should not have been part of the procedures without being substantiated first. The idea that an unsubstantiated, uncorroborated charge should be used to stop the procedure, and then to delay and delay and delay it, should be, and is, permissible to anyone, including judges, to call it out. Defending yourself against your accusers and those who wish to stop you in a job interview does not disqualify a judge from telling the truth.

It would be unconscionable of a SCOTUS Justice to withhold the truth simply to be politically correct.

I guess my bulb is diming, but I know you will help set me straight as you always do and I’m always so grateful for the endless wisdom you selflessly share.

If I wanted to derail this nomination and wanted to pick the perfect time to leak the letter, would I not want to do this early on, so as to not risk the GOP controlled senate the opportunity to ram it threw? Had they done so, it more than likely would have meant a far more in depth FBI investigation, than one afforded to them in a short week.

If Flake hadn’t made that last minute move, the vote would have been a done deal more than likely. Again I’m only a dim 60 watt bulb and I’m certain your 150 watt brilliance will shed some light on this dem or Clinton conspiracy plan the was launched at the last minute.

By now if the FBI had weeks and weeks and proof was forthcoming, than the outcome would have been a rest and new pick and nobody seated before the mid terms.

Oh my I’m so confused!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

If I wanted to derail this nomination and wanted to pick the perfect time to leak the letter, would I not want to do this early on, so as to not risk the GOP controlled senate the opportunity to ram it threw? Had they done so, it more than likely would have meant a far more in depth FBI investigation, than one afforded to them in a short week.

The letter should not have been leaked. It was submitted with the understanding that it wouldn't be. It was a lie to leak it. But that is supposed to be OK. Only if Kavanaugh lies does it matter. Some lies are, apparently, more honest than others.

The "perfect time" to release it, would be when it is verified, corroborated. Otherwise, it is no more useful than a lie.

Making the letter public stirs up the expected rabid media and negative public reaction based on mere accusation without verification. These are the very things that should not be part of deliberations seeking actual facts and records regarding the verifiable qualifications of someone you wish to hire.

There are many reasons for dysfunctional government. Allowing this method of jaccuse to become standard procedure in hearings, campaigns, choosing political appointees, will only make government process more dysfunctional than it already is.

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The letter should not have been leaked. It was submitted with the understanding that it wouldn't be. It was a lie to leak it. But that is supposed to be OK. Only if Kavanaugh lies does it matter. Some lies are, apparently, more honest than others.

The "perfect time" to release it, would be when it is verified, corroborated. Otherwise, it is no more useful than a lie.

Making the letter public stirs up the expected rabid media and negative public reaction based on mere accusation without verification. These are the very things that should not be part of deliberations seeking actual facts and records regarding the verifiable qualifications of someone you wish to hire.

There are many reasons for dysfunctional government. Allowing this method of jaccuse to become standard procedure in hearings, campaigns, choosing political appointees, will only make government process more dysfunctional than it already is.

I’m disappointed, I was hoping for the explanation as to why the supposed ploy by the evil dems to delay, delay and delay involved such a late leak of the letter.

All you did was tell me what I already knew, that this poor women’s trust was betrayed by some (not a well coordinated dem-Clinton conspiracy) person who felt getting that information out there was more important.

One staffer likely thinking that was needed to prevent someone accused of attempted rape being confirmed to the highest post in our legal system is probably what happened. So tell me, you buying into his rant claiming that conspiracy is real and that happened, because you seemed to believe so and if so I’d refer you back to me previous post. Also, since we are in agreement (OMG mark the calendar) the letter release was wrong and that now we have an FBI investigation under way, does you opinion of the man change if they come back with enough to support her claim? Or does the actions of a beer drinking party crazed 17 year old not matter when we appoint someone to the highest court in the land; maybe not but would lying about it to the senate sway your vote?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Ginsberg and Sotomayor don’t show bias in their personal lives?

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

nooooo