Supreme court nominees

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kmcicco2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ucfengr said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
It is not a federal crime. The FBI normally would not get involved. But in this case they are not considering the crime. They are considering a SCOTUS appointment.
Click to expand...
Sounds like him being a potential rapist is only of tertiary import to you.
Click to expand...
I am not the prosecuting attorney. I am not a Senator. I am only attempting to explain why they are doing what they are doing.
 
If her testimony is to be taken seriously by the Senators, she will in all probability have to testify under oath. And she has agreed to testify under oath, after the FBI investigates her story.
Click to expand...
I see no reason to give her the benefit of the doubt, we all live by rules. What is this, FBI has to investigate it? There are already plenty of indications they have said this is not in their jurisdiction. Stated in the thread above, I won’t hunt that info down.

She deserves no special treatment. I deserve no special treatment nor anyone else here on such a hanging by the thread accusation.

And especially, since the FBI has looked at Kavanaugh, you want new rules beneficial to running out the clock by the Democrats, it will be another delay after this I’d assume.
 
Last edited:
Victoria33 said:
If her testimony is to be taken seriously by the Senators, she will in all probability have to testify under oath. And she has agreed to testify under oath, after the FBI investigates her story.
Click to expand...
How is seriously considering her testimony the same as giving her the benefit of the doubt? If her testimony is not convincing, then it won’t convince anyone.
And especially, since the FBI has looked at Kavanaugh, you want new rules beneficial to running out the clock by the Democrats, it will be another delay after this I’d assume.
Click to expand...
Running out the clock? Which clock? The midterms? Why should that be a deadline?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
She wishes for a special investigation by a Federal government organization, the FBI which the FBI and many others declare is not even in their duties.

So, this is all a bit of nonsense.

Judge Kavanaugh has rights to, one can say “well, this isn’t a criminal trial,” but we have no reason nor right to hold up his life and the life of this country and the Supreme Court on any ol’ accusation that walks through the door.

What this lady is even doing may be no better than badgering someone for all I know, sort of harassing someone. Her case, falls apart one domino after another.

Her statements have already been shown to be inconsistent, nobody backs up her story. Yes, one lady sent out a tweet which she deleted and then, it was shown she may well not even know about this case and what she said may have harmed the position of Prof. Ford.
 
Last edited:
Victoria33 said:
Judge Kavanaugh has rights to, one can say “well, this isn’t a criminal trial,” but we have no reason nor right to hold up his life and the life of this country and the Supreme Court on any ol’ accusation that walks through the door.
Click to expand...
So…Merrick Garland also had rights not to have his life held up with no hearing for months and months? And the country had a right to have that 9th Justice filled? But it was not filled for a whole year. What of that? Now we have been without a 9th Justice for not even two months! I don’t think the life of the country is suffering for it, do you?
 

Kavanaugh was nominated in July.

By the way, bringing up Merrick Garland, part of the equation is that the Republicans hold the Senate, their role is to advise and consent on a SCOTUS appointee.

We really should not, in respect to this forum, just run over the same ground again. Now, it is evident we are being argumentative.

Kavanaugh has gone through rigorous vetting already.

Professor Ford shows she very much, has special interests in not seeing Kavanaugh nominated given her background, not just personal but professional, her politics too.

He has rights as well, he has a right to speedy justice as well, one can argue that’s for a criminal trial or something but we can keep it real.
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle said:
It is not a federal crime. The FBI normally would not get involved. But in this case they are not considering the crime. They are considering a SCOTUS appointment.
Click to expand...
On the other hand, people are going to prison for merely lying to the FBI.

And, false testimony can [ and does ] result in a one-year prison sentence.
 
MonteRCMS said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
It is not a federal crime. The FBI normally would not get involved. But in this case they are not considering the crime. They are considering a SCOTUS appointment.
Click to expand...
On the other hand, people are going to prison for merely lying to the FBI.

And, false testimony can [ and does ] result in a one-year prison sentence.
Click to expand...
I don’t think anyone is suggesting that those rules be suspended by Prof. Ford.
 
JonNC said:
It is merely hear say, rumor, nothing at all legal.
Click to expand...
It is not hearsay or rumour when coming from those involved.
JonNC said:
An investigation, then , should be brief. Talk to the three. Done.
Click to expand...
There may be a little more follow up, but I agree: it should be brief. And that is why all the objections to it make so little sense.
 
Yes much like with Trump
Show me the man and I’ll give you the crime
 
www.americanthinker.com

Fast times at Holton-Arms High when Christine Blasey Ford was a student there

Since high school keg parties at the elite prep schools attended by Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey are now a matter of consuming interest to the Democrat-media complex, it is perhaps telling that the high school yearbooks of Holton-Arms, the sc...
www.americanthinker.com www.americanthinker.com

Yes, Kavanaugh has the votes, in fact, Sen. Jeff Flake said if she, Professor Ford, does not show up to testify, he would vote for Kavanaugh whereas before, he was more middle-of-the-road.
 
Last edited:
One could well doubt it. This gives the likes of Collins, Murkowski, Heitkamp and Manchin cover to vote against his confirmation instead of having to admit they’re voting against a potential prolifer simply because he’s Catholic.

Democrat bigotry may well win out in this. After all, anti-Catholicism is the “anti-Semitism of the left”.
 
They need to go ahead with the vote. If he doesn’t make it in, this will give Trump time to get a new man/woman confirmed before november.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top