Kavanaugh endorsement rescinded

[on_the_hill]

And that’s the kind of person you want on the Supreme Court?

I don’t support Kav, but even I don’t believe those allegations of organized, regular gang rape parties.

 

[ConstantLearner]

I don’t support Kav, but even I don’t believe those allegations of organized, regular gang rape parties.

I don’t support him, and I don’t believe the gang rape accusations, either. I’m not inclined to believe women who claim rape or assault after decades, but I do believe Ford. That doesn’t bother me as much as Kavanaugh’s lies now, though.

 

[on_the_hill]

on_the_hill:

I don’t support Kav, but even I don’t believe those allegations of organized, regular gang rape parties.

I don’t support him, and I don’t believe the gang rape accusations, either. I’m not inclined to believe women who claim rape or assault after decades, but I do believe Ford. That doesn’t bother me as much as Kavanaugh’s lies now, though.

I concur in your findings.

 

[Thorolfr]

ConstantLearner:

And that’s the kind of person you want on the Supreme Court?

I don’t support Kav, but even I don’t believe those allegations of organized, regular gang rape parties.

There are even some conservatives who have supported Kavanaugh in the past who don’t think he has the right temperament to be on the Supreme Court after seeing his testimony to the Senate last week. As Benjamin Wittes writes in The Atlantic:

I have a long relationship with Kavanaugh, and I have always liked him. I have admired his career on the D.C. Circuit. I have spoken warmly of him. I have published him. I have vouched publicly for his character—more than once—and taken a fair bit of heat for doing so. I have also spent a substantial portion of my adult life defending the proposition that judicial nominees are entitled to a measure of decency from the Senate and that there should be norms of civility within a process that showed Kavanaugh none even before the current allegations arose…

Despite all of that, if I were a senator, I would vote against Kavanaugh’s confirmation…

His opening statement was an unprecedentedly partisan outburst of emotion from a would-be justice. I do not begrudge him the emotion, even the anger. He has been through a kind of hell that would leave any person gasping for air. But I cannot condone the partisanship—which was raw, undisguised, naked, and conspiratorial—from someone who asks for public faith as a dispassionate and impartial judicial actor. His performance was wholly inconsistent with the conduct we should expect from a member of the judiciary.

I Know Brett Kavanaugh, but I Wouldn’t Confirm Him

This is an article I never imagined myself writing, that I never wanted to write, that I wish I could not write.

www.theatlantic.com

 

[Thorolfr]

Benjamin Wittes makes an important point in what he wrote in The Atlantic:

What is important is the dissonance between the Kavanaugh of Thursday’s hearing and the judicial function. Can anyone seriously entertain the notion that a reasonable pro-choice woman would feel like her position could get a fair shake before a Justice Kavanaugh? Can anyone seriously entertain the notion that a reasonable Democrat, or a reasonable liberal of any kind, would after that performance consider him a fair arbiter in, say, a case about partisan gerrymandering, voter identification, or anything else with a strong partisan valence? Quite apart from the merits of Ford’s allegations against him, Kavanaugh’s display on Thursday — if I were a senator voting on confirmation —would preclude my support.

 

[meltzerboy2]

How is Kavanaugh different from any other current Justice of the Supreme Court? They are all partisan, either right or left. Maybe, however, it would be preferable to have more of a centrist than another right-wing ideologue for a more balanced court. But otherwise, since when is political ideology not part of all these judges’ views and decisions in a variety of cases? Given this, Kavanaugh would fit in perfectly with the rest of them.

 

[ConstantLearner]

His opening statement was an unprecedentedly partisan outburst of emotion from a would-be justice. I do not begrudge him the emotion, even the anger. He has been through a kind of hell that would leave any person gasping for air. But I cannot condone the partisanship—which was raw, undisguised, naked, and conspiratorial—from someone who asks for public faith as a dispassionate and impartial judicial actor. His performance was wholly inconsistent with the conduct we should expect from a member of the judiciary.

I totally agree.

 

[Thorolfr]

How is Kavanaugh different from any other current Justice of the Supreme Court? They are all partisan, either right or left. Maybe, however, it would be preferable to have more of a centrist than another right-wing ideologue for a more balanced court. But otherwise, since when is political ideology not part of all these judges’ views and decisions in a variety of cases? Given this, Kavanaugh would fit in perfectly with the rest of them.

LOL…I guess that we would all at least like the illusion of having non-partisan, dispassionate and impartial judicial actors. We talk about the differences between the justices being ones of “judicial philosophy,” not raw partisan politics. But Kavanaugh has made his political partisanship very clear and obvious. His background as part of the Starr investigation and as a political appointee in the Bush Whitehouse made him seem to me from the very beginning to not be the right kind of person to be a Supreme Court justice.

 

[ConstantLearner]

How is Kavanaugh different from any other current Justice of the Supreme Court? They are all partisan, either right or left. Maybe, however, it would be preferable to have more of a centrist than another right-wing ideologue for a more balanced court. But otherwise, since when is political ideology not part of all these judges’ views and decisions in a variety of cases? Given this, Kavanaugh would fit in perfectly with the rest of them.

A centrist wouldn’t necessarily be any better than a conservative or a liberal. Judges are often chosen because a president feels that judge will advance his agenda, but that often isn’t the case. Since there’s no process to remove a justice from the Court, they feel free to interpret the Constitution any way they see fit, and most do.

For example, it was Anthony Kennedy, a Catholic and a Republican nominee, who voted FOR same-sex marriage and even wrote the majority opinion.

It was a Republican-appointed Court who upheld Roe v. Wade and made abortion legal.

Roe v. Wade Approved By Republican Appointees

For more than 50 years of my adult life, I have been an Evangelical Christian. My relationship with the Lord has guided my life. Despite my heartfelt and often-stated objections

heraldcourier.com

Justices can surprise the presidents who appoint them. Of course, they give some indication of how they’ll vote before they’re nominated.

Things really depend on how the justice interprets the Constitution. Is he or she a strict constructionist, a fluid constructionist, etc. That is difficult to say until the justice is presented with an actual case to interpret.

Kavanaugh was chosen by Trump to strike down Roe v. Wade and same-sex marriage, but Kavanaugh says he follows the letter of the Constitution, so who knows how he would vote when and if he’s ever presented with a case involving abortion or same-sex marriage. People think they know, but the actual result is often a surprise.

 

[Thorolfr]

Since there’s no process to remove a justice from the Court, they feel free to interpret the Constitution any way they see fit, and most do.

Like all members of the Federal judiciary, I think that Supreme Court justices can be impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate.

 

[meltzerboy2]

Indeed there have been surprises. I think of Justice Kennedy, whom you mentioned, and also former Justice Souter, among others. But there were no surprises I am aware of from the late Justice Scalia or Justice Thomas, nor any so far from Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, or Kagan. In other words, the hard-core conservatives and hard-core liberals nearly always decide cases according to their political beliefs, as well as their judicial philosophy. In my opinion, partisanship rules the bench, perhaps now more than ever, just as it rules Congress.

 

[ConstantLearner]

And right you are! Thank you!

The term “good behavior” is understood to mean justices may serve for the remainder of their lives, unless they are impeached and convicted by Congress, resign, or retire. Only one justice has been impeached by the House of Representatives (Samuel Chase, March 1804), but he was acquitted in the Senate.

But I think it’s even harder than impeaching a president.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Actually, he admitted he did drink to excess, but he claimed he never blanked out.

But his acquaintances say he did. Now his name is even appears in a letter written in high school or college, which discusses his drinking problem and blacking out.

That isn’t the problem, though. The problem is: He lied about something significant. It’s not right to appoint a proven liar to the highest court in the land, one in which there is no process for removal. Brett Kavanaugh appears to be a liar, and there are plenty of other conservatives Trump could appoint. Confirming Kavanaugh will cause the court to have credibility problems, and it’s just not necessary.

What the heck is a “proven liar?” Would that mean anyone who has bent the truth just a little once in their entire life? Or told one clear falsehood?

I would suppose that would include yourself?

If you say, “No,” you won’t be believed and you will have saddled yourself with a “credibility problem.”

If you say, “Yes,” then according to your subjective standard for Kavanaugh, you will still have a “credibility problem” because you did, in fact, lie at least once.

Kavanaugh wouldn’t cause the court to have credibility problems except in the eyes of individuals who have no idea what constitutes credibility.

Or hypocrisy for that matter.

Most people understand that each of us are not paragons of truth and “lies” – even if we grant you that is what Kavanaugh did – not that you have demonstrated that – do not completely discredit others especially when political entrapment was clearly involved.

 

[ConstantLearner]

Yes, I agree. With Trump as president, the country has gotten more partisan than ever before.

 

[ConstantLearner]

Most people understand that each of us are not paragons of truth and “lies” – even if we grant you that is what Kavanaugh did – not that you have demonstrated that – do not completely discredit others especially when political entrapment was clearly involved.

All of us bend the truth occasionally, even with lies of omission. However, I don’t think most of us commit perjury.

I testified for seven hours in a civil case in which I was the plaintiff (and won), and I never lied. No way was I going to commit perjury.

 

[HarryStotle]

Tis_Bearself:

An atheist trashing Kavanaugh and advocating for abortion here is not very persuasive or credible, sorry.

Either is a Catholic supporting a serial liar and tax evader (Trump) and a man willing to commit assault (Kavanaugh).

Those are not Catholic values.

Catholic values include forgiveness of sin, the possibility of conversion and redemption, and not condemning others for their past behaviour.

Nor does it include false accusation and calumny, which is what your judgement of Kavanaugh being “a man willing to commit assault,” without reasonable proof that he was willing.

Your opinions notwithstanding.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Most people understand that each of us are not paragons of truth and “lies” – even if we grant you that is what Kavanaugh did – not that you have demonstrated that – do not completely discredit others especially when political entrapment was clearly involved.

All of us bend the truth occasionally, even with lies of omission. However, I don’t think most of us commit perjury.

I testified for seven hours in a civil case in which I was the plaintiff (and won), and I never lied. No way was I going to commit perjury.

And you think Kavanaugh with his entire career and future on the line would commit perjury, given that he has a far better understanding of what that means and what it entails than you do?

 

[HarryStotle]

ConstantLearner:

on_the_hill:

I don’t support Kav, but even I don’t believe those allegations of organized, regular gang rape parties.

I don’t support him, and I don’t believe the gang rape accusations, either. I’m not inclined to believe women who claim rape or assault after decades, but I do believe Ford. That doesn’t bother me as much as Kavanaugh’s lies now, though.

I concur in your findings.

Yeah, not “findings,” exactly. Opinions.

 

[ConstantLearner]

Nor does it include false accusation and calumny, which is what your judgement of Kavanaugh being “a man willing to commit assault,” without reasonable proof that he was willing.

I’m not Catholic.

We all have to make judgments every day about people. My conscience is clear in my judgment that Kavanaugh has shown he’s not fit to sit on the Supreme Court, for several reasons, not the least of which includes the manner in which he responds to questions and questioners he does not like.

Could ANY Democrat or Independent liberal feel they could get a fair and impartial shake from him? No, and they should be able to feel that way. It seems his mind would be made up even before he read the case presented to the court.

 

[ConstantLearner]

And you think Kavanaugh with his entire career and future on the line would commit perjury, given that he has a far better understanding of what that means and what it entails than you do?

I don’t think it, I know it. He did it, I did not. And I’m sure I know what perjury is. My uncle is a state Supreme Court judge. Several other uncles are attorneys.