Supreme court nominees

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kmcicco2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jeanne_S said:
Ohh c’mon this is a nothingburger give it up,already!
Click to expand...
I am not in a position to determine that this is a nothing burger. Those who think that they seem to be just making stuff up. Why not wait, have a proper and professional investigations. Then we can find out.
 
She doesn’t even remember where this occurred or exactly when or Her age,first she said 15 then 17? there were two witnesses then four Doesn’t know how she got home,never told anyone in all these years.Really?
 
robertmidwest said:
It would involve the FBI because it concerns the nomination of a federal judge. Not in sense that the FBI is coming in to break up a party when some high school kids parents are out of town.
Click to expand...
Actually the FBI said in an article that it wasn’t their jurisdiction because there was no evidence that anyone had committed a federal crime.

Assault on a woman within one state, not crossing state lines, is a state law issue. The Maryland police would be the proper authorities to investigate this one. I’m pretty sure that unless he committed a felony (doubtful given the description), the statute of limitations already expired on top of there being no evidence.
 
One of her witnesses said he knows nothing about this and the other apparently said on social media she was going on second hand information and then had to delete her social media everywhere because of the resulting uproar. Honestly this is like an episode of Beverly Hills 90210.
 
Which is true but the Senators have to eventually face their constituents as a result of their actions too. As far as I know 20 some Republicans are up for re-election in 2020 and 21 in 2022. They have it easy this election. 🙂
 
Tis_Bearself said:
Actually the FBI said in an article that it wasn’t their jurisdiction because there was no evidence that anyone had committed a federal crime.
Click to expand...
www.usatoday.com

Woman who accused Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault speaks out in account published by Washington Post

The woman said she decided to come forward and tell her story after a bare-bones version of the events became public without her name and consent.
www.usatoday.com
no such accusations had turned up during the six times the FBI has looked into Kavanaugh’s background over his decades of public service.
Click to expand...
Ford described the attack in late July in a confidential letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, who honored Ford’s request for confidentiality but referred the matter to FBI. The bureau added it to Kavanaugh’s background investigation file but is not pursuing a criminal investigation.
Click to expand...
 
Yes, it’s background the same way as the FBI would put in a government security clearance file anything about your past. If it’s a questionable state law issue, they will note it down and you might end up getting denied a clearance or having your appointment or nomination withdrawn, but they normally wouldn’t launch a full-blown investigation of something that didn’t involve a federal law, unless maybe the President told them to, which this President is unlikely to do.

Nowadays the federal law is so far-reaching that almost anything might be tied to a federal law violation, but I think misbehavior at a high school party is one of the few things that doesn’t quite make it.
 
dvdjs said:
40.png
Jeanne_S:
This is true and it has also been pointed out Kavenaug’s been thoroughly vetted six times.
Click to expand...
Not thorough enough to discover and investigate the newly reported incident.
Click to expand...
That’s because Ford did not want it known, assuming it happened. She has never filed a police report. There’s nothing for the FBI to investigate.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
The right to face your accuser is reserved only for those cases where you are facing a serious punishment for a criminal act, and I think that is entirely proper. Don’t you?
Click to expand...
No. The right to face your accuser is a matter of justice aimed at discovering the truth.
 
Ender said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
The right to face your accuser is reserved only for those cases where you are facing a serious punishment for a criminal act, and I think that is entirely proper. Don’t you?
Click to expand...
No. The right to face your accuser is a matter of justice aimed at discovering the truth.
Click to expand...
Even in the case of the example I gave, which you cut out in quoting me?
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Even in the case of the example I gave, which you cut out in quoting me?
Click to expand...
Examples are irrelevant. A person has a right to properly defend his reputation, without exception. This doesn’t mean a high priced lawyer gets to savage the accuser, but it surely means that no one can be condemned solely on the word of another person without the possibility of defending himself, which is precisely what is happening here.

If Ford will not testify before Congress on Monday her allegations should be dismissed and the vote taken. It’s time to put up or shut up.
 
Ender said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
Even in the case of the example I gave, which you cut out in quoting me?
Click to expand...
Examples are irrelevant. A person has a right to properly defend his reputation, without exception.
Click to expand...
First of all, examples are relevant when they point out a flaw in your reasoning.

Secondly, a person’s right to defend his reputation does not always extend to his having a right to confront someone who speaks against him. It depends. If Kavanaugh truly believes he is being slandered, then he has a right to bring civil charges of slander against his accuser. Then and only then does he gain the right to confront that accuser - in a court of law, not in a SCOTUS hearing.

Again, if you believe the right to confront one’s “accuser” is universal, then please comment on the example of the job interview for coach of the football team and tell me if you think that applicant has the right to confront, face to face, the person who says (to the private regents’ meeting) that the applicant made inappropriate remarks…
…but it surely means that no one can be condemned solely on…
Click to expand...
As often as you use the word “condemned” for this case I will continue to point out that being denied a seat on the Supreme Court for life is not in the same league as being “condemned.” Kavanaugh can continue to have his job as a district judge and live quite well regardless of the outcome of this hearing.

By the way, what’s the big hurry? When Merrick Garland was nominated, the Republicans were quite content to go without the 9th Justice for a year. Now all of a sudden it is Monday or nothing!
 
Last edited:
The operative word here is ALLEGED. It is scary how many people are willing to believe the accuser with absolutely no facts or consistent story. I looked into the background of both individuals and I have reason to believe that the accuser is being used by the Dems to assert something that is not true in order to keep Judge Kavanaugh off the SC. If he does not have the votes to be confirmed, what are they going to do to the next nominee?
 
LeafByNiggle said:
As often as you use the word “condemned” for this case I will continue to point out that being denied a seat on the Supreme Court for life is not in the same league as being “condemned.” Kavanaugh can continue to have his job as a district judge and live quite well regardless of the outcome of this hearing.
Click to expand...
Its not just a matter of a seat on the SCOTUS…its his reputation and being labeled a sexual predator. Look no further than Matthew Dowd of ABC News referring to Clarence Thomas as a sexual predator.

www.foxnews.com

ABC News star Matthew Dowd slammed for calling Justice Clarence Thomas a ‘sexual predator’

ABC News chief political analyst Matthew Dowd was slammed after calling Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas a “sexual predator” on Twitter when apparently attempting to smear Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.
www.foxnews.com www.foxnews.com

The comparisons to Merrick Garland fall short on this one
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Speculation. Is Christine Blasey Ford a Democrat? I don’t know. Do you? Even if she is, it would be an ad hominem to dismiss her allegations because of who you think she is.
Click to expand...
I meant “Ms. Ford” in the sense of her as an issue. Feinstein bears significantly more of the blame than Ms. Ford. Ford appears to be a “me too” person, hat and all. She’s a professor at a liberal institution, and she has reason to resent Kavanaugh’s family. That isn’t an “ad hominem”. That’s simply pointing out that there are reasons to doubt her story.

Still, that’s not the point anyway. The point is that she was brought forward by the Dems in order to prevent a potentially prolife justice’s appointment. One might say, and with reason, that this is just another example of bias against Catholicism on the part of the Democrats. To my understanding, there’s no reason to think he would vote prolife except for his religion. He’s being “negatively” (from their standpoint) stereotyped because of his religion.

But we have known the Dem party is anti-Catholic for some time. Nothing really new in that.
 
Ridgerunner said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
Speculation. Is Christine Blasey Ford a Democrat? I don’t know. Do you? Even if she is, it would be an ad hominem to dismiss her allegations because of who you think she is.
Click to expand...
I meant “Ms. Ford” in the sense of her as an issue. Feinstein bears significantly more of the blame than Ms. Ford. Ford appears to be a “me too” person, hat and all.
Click to expand...
Women are “me too” people, not by their own choice but by their circumstances.
She’s a professor at a liberal institution…
Click to expand...
Now the whole institution is questionable? I suppose the only one that isn’t questionable is Prager U.
and she has reason to resent Kavanaugh’s family.
Click to expand...
If you mean the rumor that Judge Martha Kavanaugh ‘Ruled Against’ the Parents of Ms. Ford, that has been debunked.
That isn’t an “ad hominem”. That’s simply pointing out that there are reasons to doubt her story.
Click to expand...
There are reasons to question her story. Not dismiss it out of hand.
Still, that’s not the point anyway. The point is that she was brought forward by the Dems in order to prevent a potentially prolife justice’s appointment.
Click to expand...
The Democrats’ pleasure in having such a witness has nothing to do with the strength of the witness’s claim.
One might say, and with reason, that this is just another example of bias against Catholicism on the part of the Democrats.
Click to expand...
You can claim that, but statistics don’t back you up, since there are a substantial number of Catholics who identify as Democrats. Now if you mean substantial bias against extreme right-wing politics, I would agree.
To my understanding, there’s no reason to think he would vote prolife except for his religion. He’s being “negatively” (from their standpoint) stereotyped because of his religion.
Click to expand...
He may be negatively stereotyped, but not in the charges of attempted rape. That is separate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top