kavanaugh

[Jim in CT]

How about Dr Ford’s selective fear of flying? she can fly on vacation, but not to testify? Her fear of flying is a function of the reason for her going to her destination? That’s creative.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

[Got Stripers]

Call BS, have you not watched the local news, at that age he could very well have been prosecuted as an adult.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Call BS, have you not watched the local news, at that age he could very well have been prosecuted as an adult.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

As to your response to ONE of my points, it depends on the alleged crime. Third degree sexual assault in Maryland can refer a minor to adult court. Ms. Ford's description doesn't seem to fully meet the definition of third degree of assault. Also taken into consideration is the defendant's past behavior. Is it a first offense. And is there sufficient evidence that the crime occurred and that the defendant did it.

The overall situation that Ms. Ford describes would be a very weak one in order to refer the case to adult court.

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by detbuch

As to your response to ONE of my points, it depends on the alleged crime. Third degree sexual assault in Maryland can refer a minor to adult court. Ms. Ford's description doesn't seem to fully meet the definition of third degree of assault. Also taken into consideration is the defendant's past behavior. Is it a first offense. And is there sufficient evidence that the crime occurred and that the defendant did it.

The overall situation that Ms. Ford describes would be a very weak one in order to refer the case to adult court.

I think your wrong in that this possibly is a second degree sex offense and could have bumped him up to be tried as an adult, but it's a moot point at this point legally. My point was surprise that your ok with a guy being guilty at 17 of committing a second or even third degree sex offense getting nominated and voted to the supreme court. I guess your moral standards are different than mine, once a scum bag capable of that, down deep your always capable; given the right amount of skiis.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

I think your wrong in that this possibly is a second degree sex offense and could have bumped him up to be tried as an adult, but it's a moot point at this point legally. My point was surprise that your ok with a guy being guilty at 17 of committing a second or even third degree sex offense getting nominated and voted to the supreme court.

What Ms. Ford alleges is not specifically a sex act. And as I mentioned there are other mitigating circumstances including first offense, under the influence of alcohol (both parties) and other circumstances which would have required a particularly vindictive judge or prosecutor to bump it to adult court considering the consequences to the future of a minor with no criminal record being convicted in adult court.

Plus, what Ms. Ford provides in detail would not have been enough to press charges.

I guess your moral standards are different than mine, once a scum bag capable of that, down deep your always capable; given the right amount of skiis.

My moral and legal standards don't allow me to call someone a scum bag on hearsay. Nor do I believe that someone having done what he is accused of will always after do or want to repeat such a thing. And when he has 36 years of proper life and superior achievement following what he was supposed to have done, I cannot get myself to call him a scumbag, not morally, legally, or any other way.

And I certainly can't hold Kavanaugh to a higher standard than those politicians who have done worse than he is accused of, even as adults, and while in office, and were still considered not only fit, but highly competent, successful, and admired for their work.

And I don't know what skeletons all the other Justices of the Supreme Court have in their closets. I doubt if they, or if even any, were saints. If the FBI were to fully investigate their intimate pasts, I suspect some bad stuff would be found. But once appointed, and in practice, none seem to be called unfit. Wrong, maybe, but not unfit.

I don't know if my moral standards are different than yours. It may just take more to trigger them.

[PaulS]

At this point Cavanaugh has bigger problems. It's it's proved he's lied to the committee, that disqualifies him
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

It's it's proved he's lied to the committee, that disqualifies him

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

thanks Captain Obvious

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by scottw

thanks Captain Obvious

Stop trying so hard to be a #^&#^&#^&#^&. I'm not fishing with you anymore
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Stop trying so hard to be a #^&#^&#^&#^&. I'm not fishing with you anymore
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Doesn’t seem like it takes much effort.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Stop trying so hard to be a #^&#^&#^&#^&. I'm not fishing with you anymore
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

your spelling is improving....that's something...and don't worry..I'll buy the beer I thought we were "beachfriends"?

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by scottw

I thought we were "beachfriends"?

[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

[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

[Raider Ronnie]

I don’t know whose house it happened at or even what year it happened. I don’t know if I got there before everyone else or after. I don’t know how I got there or how I got home over 8 miles away (at the age of 15).

My life time friend doesn’t remember any of this ( and the other 3 people I said were there testified under oath they don’t know anything about this).

I have a fear of flying , but have no problem jet-setting all over the world while on vacation. I’ve been on airplanes more in the past two months than most people in a year, but my fear is completely legit.

I don’t know who paid for my hotel and polygraph test( the afternoon of my grandmothers funeral, or maybe it was the next day, who knows). And guess what? I flew there. Oh and that polygraph, it was only two questions, neither of which were about Kavanaugh. But hey, I passed so that’s all that matters. And my PhD in psychology definitely, in no way, helped me with it or my testimony today.

My friends on the beach encouraged me to continue contacting the media with my story (because we were running out of time). I can’t name them, so we’ll just call them beach friends. Yet while giving such great advice, none were willing to be character witnesses. Meanwhile, Judge Kavanaugh had hundreds of character witnesses step up in a matter of days.

My lawyers, out of the kindness of their hearts, are helping me for FREE yet I have a “needed” gofundme page that currently is sitting at $473,622. I’m so desperately in need of help there’s even a second gofundme with $209,987. I promise though I’m not getting anything out of my testimony, that money is just going to cover my expenses.

I’m super smart. I have a PhD and I teach graduate students. I know lots of big words, but it should be totally believable that I don’t understand basic questions.

I was the only person in the United States that didn’t know Congress agreed to come to me instead of me going to DC. They really do care about my flying phobia after all.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Raider Ronnie

I don’t know whose house it happened at or even what year it happened. I don’t know if I got there before everyone else or after. I don’t know how I got there or how I got home over 8 miles away (at the age of 15).

My life time friend doesn’t remember any of this ( and the other 3 people I said were there testified under oath they don’t know anything about this).

I have a fear of flying , but have no problem jet-setting all over the world while on vacation. I’ve been on airplanes more in the past two months than most people in a year, but my fear is completely legit.

I don’t know who paid for my hotel and polygraph test( the afternoon of my grandmothers funeral, or maybe it was the next day, who knows). And guess what? I flew there. Oh and that polygraph, it was only two questions, neither of which were about Kavanaugh. But hey, I passed so that’s all that matters. And my PhD in psychology definitely, in no way, helped me with it or my testimony today.

My friends on the beach encouraged me to continue contacting the media with my story (because we were running out of time). I can’t name them, so we’ll just call them beach friends. Yet while giving such great advice, none were willing to be character witnesses. Meanwhile, Judge Kavanaugh had hundreds of character witnesses step up in a matter of days.

My lawyers, out of the kindness of their hearts, are helping me for FREE yet I have a “needed” gofundme page that currently is sitting at $473,622. I’m so desperately in need of help there’s even a second gofundme with $209,987. I promise though I’m not getting anything out of my testimony, that money is just going to cover my expenses.

I’m super smart. I have a PhD and I teach graduate students. I know lots of big words, but it should be totally believable that I don’t understand basic questions.

I was the only person in the United States that didn’t know Congress agreed to come to me instead of me going to DC. They really do care about my flying phobia after all.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And yet her testimony is considered "credible."

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

And yet her testimony is considered "credible."

I was impressed that every democrat, never having met Dr Ford nor hearing her speak before the hearing was able to say "I believe you" and heap all sorts of praise and adulation on her essentially proclaiming her and installing her as a national hero....

[Pete F.]

Why would this surprise you
Does the FBI have the latitude needed?

Robert Bauer, who served as the White House counsel to President Obama, said that he had overseen numerous F.B.I. background investigations and never seen one so circumscribed. “The F.B.I. should have the latitude to determine what is necessary in a credible, professional inquiry,” he said. “The issue on the table is, Did he or didn’t he engage in the conduct that Dr. Ford alleged?” To reach the answer, he said, “The F.B.I. needs to utilize its expertise to investigate. But instead the White House has dictated a restricted investigative plan. So it’s contaminated at the core.”

[PaulS]

Yup, have an investigation but not investigate every lead.

[PaulS]

K said "what goes around comes around" when he blamed Clinton and the Dems. The way I remember him saying it was that he will get even. You might view it differently.





Justice Elena Kagan talked about perceptions of the court in an appearance at UCLA on Thursday. "The court's strength as an institution of American governance depends on people ... believing that it is not simply an extension of politics, that its decision-making has a kind of integrity to it," Kagan said. "And if people don't believe that they have no reason to accept what the court does."

The court's legitimacy was on the mind of Chief Justice John Roberts during an argument last year in a case about the drawing of electoral maps for partisan advantage. Putting the court in the middle of "deciding whether Democrats or Republicans would win in each case" would "cause very serious harm to the status and integrity of the decisions of this court in the eyes of the country," Roberts said.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

The way I remember him saying it was that he will get even.

you've lost your mind