Former Justice John Paul Stevens suggests Kavanaugh should not sit on Supreme Court

  • Thread starter Thread starter dvdjs
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
dvdjs said:
40.png
Jeanne_S:
on fact
Click to expand...
I am glad to hear this and wouldn’t have known: you almost never state the facts and logic behind your opinions.
Click to expand...
The facts and logic behind her opinions seem pretty self explanatory. I have no problem understanding the points she is making.
 
He’s so old, he, probably, doesn’t recall his younger years?!
We need to check HS &COLLEGE records of all Chief Justices.
After they smeared Brett w uncorroborated sex accusations, he was losing his teaching job. He was asked not to coach. Would he be able to return to his bench? He has been a rock after College. He has to get this job. These claims are slander as all witnesses denied the charges or other witnesses said, it didn’t happen.
The world’s elite, every year have this wild week at the Bohemian Club. Google it. Presidents, Leaders of other Nations. They dance around and march w torches before a huge owl. Some, not so nice things,go on.
Lord God, send Your Holy Spirit, to start a revival,to decrease the power of Satan on this world.
In Jesus name
Amen
 
tweedlealice said:
Would he be able to return to his bench?
Click to expand...
Yes, because unless he resigned, which he clearly wasn’t going to do, he would have to be impeached to get him off the federal appellate bench.

There have been arguments that federal judges can be removed by a writ without impeachment necessary, but if a federal judge had behaved so badly that a writ was likely, it’s more likely that his chief judge and other judges on his court would all sit him down and have a talk about him resigning instead.
 
Last edited:
Oh yes! They already threw out impeachment. Kavanaugh won the luck of the draw. That sweet female judge(Barrett?), what would they pull, if it had been her? If RBG dies, would she be the pick going into the fray? Would she?Anyone, getting that ticket will not recognize themselves, when the vote is taken.
Protect our pure hearts Oh Lord. Send Your Holy Spirit to comfort and heal Kavanaugh. Prepare the way of Lord, for the next nominee, Jesus. We know You are in control. You are returning our country to us. If my ppl, who are called by my name, shall humble themselves and seek My face. I will hear their prayer and heal their land…
in Jesus name
Amen
 
dvdjs said:
40.png
Tis_Bearself:
In any event, he doesn’t get a say.
Click to expand...
He gets a say. He doesn’t get a vote
Click to expand...
Sure he gets a say, but when a former Supreme Court Justice advocates for the repeal of one on the amendments of the Bill of Rights, I find myself being Leary of anything he says. After all, if he is willing to advocate for the removal of protections of individual rights, when must question his judgement.
 
7_Sorrows said:
40.png
dvdjs:
40.png
lilypadrees:
They’ve already got the necessary votes to confirm Kavanaugh.
Click to expand...
Do you honestly think that this vote is the end?
Click to expand...
You mean the democrats have more devious schemes up their sleeves?
Click to expand...
I’m sincerely worried about violence today at the Capitol. Robert Reich, Moveon.org, and other extremists and their “Call to Action” could end up being a “Call to Violence “.
I hope it doesn’t happen, but if they try to physically stop the vote, or hinder the movement of senators, the whole thing takes a new turn toward insurrection.
Let’s pray it doesn’t happen
 
7_Sorrows said:
You mean the democrats have more devious schemes up their sleeves?
Click to expand...
It could be that a full investigation into the allegations made against Kavanaugh may happen in a Democratic House. Until then he will be a uniquely unpopular appointment, made under new rules that allow such a marginal vote to accede to the bench of the highest court in the nation.
 
Maybe uniquely unpopular for n your eyes and your fellow Dems.Oh well…
 
Jeanne_S said:
Maybe uniquely unpopular for n your eyes and your fellow Dems.Oh well…
Click to expand...
You might consider that bipartisanship, or better, non-partisanship on the court is a good idea.
And “fellow Dems”? :confused:
 
If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck…
 
Last edited:
Rules put in motion by the actions of Harry Reid and his Senate. But if course you know that.

If you dont want voting rules tinkered with, don’t tinker with voting rules.
 
In their eyes the statute of limitations provides their proof of innocence.
 
With the framework of Senate voting rules, the main tradition was abandoned by Reid, and we all know that. He began the recent process, and it is disingenuous to argueotherwise, which of course, some will.

Or if you think both parties bear equal responsibility, so be it, but then people cant complain about the Republicans changing voting rules either, since both parties are to blame.

I think, however, it is lazy to just say “both parties do it” when it comes to how business is DC operates. The mobs you see after Trump’s election and harassing Republican politicians have no equal or equivalent from conservative voters, by and large. If they did, the media would be all over it. No, both parties are nowhere close to be ethical equals.
 
Dr_Meinheimer said:
With the framework of Senate voting rules, the main tradition was abandoned by Reid, and we all know that. He began the recent process, and it is disingenuous to argueotherwise, which of course, some will.
Click to expand...
But surely you realize that you are comparing apples to oranges.

The Republicans were blocking appointments to an unprecedented degree. that obstruction led to multiple Federal court vacancies going unfilled for extended periods. The rule change aimed at filling vacancies specifically exempted the SCOTUS.

Apart from warnings about ruing the day, some Republicans proclaimed and objection on principle. But when in control, far from reversing this rule that they opposed, even extended it to the SCOTUS where no such issues of gridlock and long term vacancies existed.
 
The Republicans considered changing the voting rules in 2005 but decided against it. The same Democrats who objected then (literally, the same people by name) had no compunction about doing it when Obama was in office.

You can die on the hill of distinctions without differences if you want, but in doubt most of folks buy it. Trump had positions left unfilled at a seemingly record rate when he came in. It was talked about for the first year all the time.

I wish neither party changed the voting rules, but you cant blame obstructionism, which while annoying, is temporary, to fundamentally changing rules that are likely never to go back.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top