Supreme court nominees

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kmcicco2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
LeafByNiggle said:
Cherry picking. Why should this one law professor’s opinion be especially regarded and the the opinion of all the others ignored?
Click to expand...
It’s the logic presented that matters
Professor Volokh raised a critical question — one that should be asked as we weigh this issue of temperament and as we stand in the midst of one of the most extraordinary confirmation battles in history.

In resolving this question of temperament, ultimately we must look to the most probative evidence of what Judge Kavanaugh will be like as a justice, and that evidence is his 12 years of service on the D.C. Circuit.

We must examine the endorsement of the lawyers who have appeared before him in court. On August 27, 2018, a bipartisan group of 40 Supreme Court advocates — the nation’s leading appellate lawyers — wrote a letter in support of Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination.

On the matter of temperament specifically, the group wrote:

“Those of us who have appeared before him appreciate his impressive ability to distill complex legal issues to their essence, the incisiveness of his questions, and the unfailing courtesy he extends to his colleagues and to counsel who appear before him .”

Likewise, the ABA’s Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary gave Judge Kavanaugh a unanimously well-qualified rating for the position of associate justice of the Supreme Court. As explained in its report on Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination, the Standing Committee “reached out to 471 judges, lawyers, and professors for information regarding Judge Kavanaugh’s integrity, professional competence, and judicial temperament.” To its inquiry, the committee received 120 responses, and the process included interviews with those “who had personal knowledge of Judge Kavanaugh through their professional or personal dealings with him.”

Simply put, the evidence for Judge Kavanaugh’s temperament is found in the hundreds of personal interviews conducted on the subject by those who know him personally, the accounts of those who have practiced law before him, and the thousands of people who have signed letters in support of his nomination. His supporters cover the ideological spectrum and have personally interacted with him in his decades of public service.
Click to expand...
 
Theo520 said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
Cherry picking. Why should this one law professor’s opinion be especially regarded and the the opinion of all the others ignored?
Click to expand...
It’s the logic presented that matters
Click to expand...
Law professors are supposed to be very good at logic. If this guy’s logic did not convince his fellow law professors, why should it convince us? No, it is not logic. It is opinion - specifically, the part you bolded.
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle said:
I oppose him on the basis of his disgraceful behavior in the hearing - even assuming he is innocent of the charge from Ford.
Click to expand...
I understand. It was terribly bad form to actually get angry at an unsubstantiated allegation that will forever stain his reputation. How dare he act like a human being?
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Law professors are supposed to be very good at logic. If this guy’s logic did not convince his fellow law professors, why should it convince us? No, it is not logic. It is opinion - specifically, the part you bolded.
Click to expand...
Why do you personally ignore the logic I posted?
You could have refuted it, but I expect you can’t
 
Theo520 said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
Law professors are supposed to be very good at logic. If this guy’s logic did not convince his fellow law professors, why should it convince us? No, it is not logic. It is opinion - specifically, the part you bolded.
Click to expand...
Why do you personally ignore the logic I posted?
You could have refuted it, but I expect you can’t
Click to expand...
I did refute it’s being logic. The sentence you bolded is obviously opinion, not fact.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
I did refute it’s being logic. The sentence you bolded is obviously opinion, not fact.
Click to expand...
see post 969 for full details, not one person’s opinion
40.png
Supreme court nominees World News
It’s the logic presented that matters Professor Volokh raised a critical question — one that should be asked as we weigh this issue of temperament and as we stand in the midst of one of the most extraordinary confirmation battles in history. In resolving this question of temperament, ultimately we must look to the most probative evidence of what Judge Kavanaugh will be like as a justice, and that evidence is his 12 years of service on the D.C. Circuit. We must examine the endorsement of the…
Click to expand...
 
I think Kavanaugh had to come out swinging to save his nomination to the Supreme Court.

The investigation by the FBI gives much credence to those who believe this was all drummed up to deny him being a Justice on the Supreme Court.

Some Democratic nominees have had a minimum of flak aimed at them in seeking the Supreme Court.

Judge Kavanaugh deserved the same consideration, not a witch hunt and by the way, I"m not so sure, Kavanaugh will be that different from Anthony Kennedy who of course, a number of conservatives are not a fan of. But this trial by fire may make him more solid in his political leanings.

I think the Judge had every right to say what he did.
 
Ender said:
Perhaps, unfortunately for her and the sink-Kavanaugh-at-any-cost cabal, there is apparently nothing in it that is of use to them. The allegation is still utterly without a shred of supporting evidence. Darn.
Click to expand...
I don’y really care if he assaulted Ford 30-plus years ago. I think he’s exhibited a temperament that renders him incapable of serving as a productive and honorable justice of the Supreme Court.
 
Like this Doxxing incident, this is connected to the Democrats, this fake story imho is connected to the Democrats. To get on Kavanaugh’s case is laughable to me. The Democrats have acted beneath contempt and are almost, through individual operatives, not the party itself, inciting violence.

I note, the article on the arrest of the young man for Doxxing, who is/was a Democratic staffer receives little comments by those who seem to back the Democrats.
 
ConstantLearner said:
I don’y really care if he assaulted Ford 30-plus years ago. I think he’s exhibited a temperament that renders him incapable of serving as a productive and honorable justice of the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...
And how did you get that? Did you review the research by the ABA, where they interviewed the people who know him and have been in his court.
 
Theo520 said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
I did refute it’s being logic. The sentence you bolded is obviously opinion, not fact.
Click to expand...
see post 969 for full details, not one person’s opinion
Click to expand...
Let me make this clear:
ultimately we must look to the most probative evidence of what Judge Kavanaugh will be like as a justice, and that evidence is his 12 years of service on the D.C. Circuit.
Click to expand...
This sentence, which is the heart of your posting, is Professor Volokh’s opinion. He is saying we should look here (at his 12 years of service), I say we should look there (at his behavior with the Senators). And apparently a lot of his colleagues also say we should look there. His blatant partisanship is clear to me, and to many others. Now people may say “The court has been political for a long time.” I don’t know if that is so or not, but whatever the truth of that claim is, the court is supposed to be non-partisan, and we should not surrender that ideal. It is one of the reasons why the court enjoys more respect from the population than any other branch of government. Having Kavanaugh on the court will undermine that confidence.

I think this essentially what the other signatories to the letter from the profs are saying, so I feel like I am in good company holding this view too.
 
Last edited:
Theo520 said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
This sentence, which is the heart of your posting, is Professor Volokh’s opinion.
Click to expand...
It’s also the opinion of the ABA, that’s how they determine their recommendations.
Click to expand...
You are making a deductive leap from a generalization of how ABA usually determines their recommendations to a specific claim that the ABA would now, after the hearing, declare that behavior in that hearing cannot be relevant. There is no statement from the ABA on that specific question. And please stop with the “deflecting” charges. It is getting tiresome.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
You are making a deductive leap from a generalization of how ABA usually determines their recommendations to a specific claim that the ABA would now, after the hearing, declare that behavior in that hearing cannot be relevant. There is no statement from the ABA on that specific question. And please stop with the “deflecting” charges. It is getting tiresome.
Click to expand...
The ABA reafirmed their support for Kavanaugh just a few days ago


You are the one making bad assumptions. Stop trying to pretend this review process on judicial fitness is the opinion of one person, it’s how it’s always been done and Kavanaugh passed with a strong recommendation.

The ABA process matters.
 
Last edited:
Theo520 said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
You are making a deductive leap from a generalization of how ABA usually determines their recommendations to a specific claim that the ABA would now, after the hearing, declare that behavior in that hearing cannot be relevant. There is no statement from the ABA on that specific question. And please stop with the “deflecting” charges. It is getting tiresome.
Click to expand...
The ABA reafirmed their support for Kavanaugh just a few days ago
Click to expand...
The citation you provided does not say that. Here is what it does say:
The ABA’s rating for Judge Kavanaugh is not affected by Mr. Carlson’s letter.
Click to expand...
You may think this is a reaffirmation of Kavanaugh, but it is not. All this is saying is that Mr. Carlson’s letter does not constitute a revision of the ABA’s rating. That means the original rating still stands as the official one because no reconsideration was done. It does not mean that the ABA has examined the implications of Kavanaugh’s behavior and has again concluded in the affirmative. The failure to re-evaluate based on the new information does not constitute an affirmation that if a re-evaluation were conducted today they would come to the same conclusion.
Stop trying to pretend this review process on judicial fitness is the opinion of one person…
Click to expand...
I’m not. I’m saying the repudiation of the letter from the law profs is the opinion of one person.
 
Last edited:
conservativefiringline.com

Kavanaugh Allegations are Psychological Terrorism and it's Time They End ⋆ Conservative Firing Line

The Democrats' real goal is psychological terrorism—that is, engaging in a scorched-earth effort to destroy the target, which happens to be Brett Kavanaugh.
conservativefiringline.com
Kavanaugh Allegations are Psychological Terrorism and it’s Time They End ⋆ Conservative Firing Line
Jim Simpson

The left’s smear tactics have come on full display during the surfeit of attacks on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. Whether you support or oppose this SCOTUS nomination, the tactics being used are more extreme even than during the Clarence Thomas hearings.

But as we know, they are nothing new, and Democrats will continue to use them until the American people scream “Enough!” — because they are effective. The real goal is psychological terrorism—that is, engaging in a scorched-earth effort to destroy the target, and in so doing intimidating anyone willing to enter public service, or even just support a public figure that does not parrot the politically correct line.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry but this may well be correct, it is as if we going through low-intensity terrorism.
 
ConstantLearner said:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...es-ludington-trump-huppke-20181001-story.html
Click to expand...
From this one:
He is also white and a man in a position of great power, characteristics that entitle him to a certain number of lies that don’t count. I thought everybody knew about these permissible lies, but apparently not. They’re called “little white-male-privilege lies” and are defined as: Lies about things a powerful white man deems small or unimportant, told to avoid hurting that same powerful white man’s ambitions.
Click to expand...
I continue to be amazed by the amount of racism that has come out of this controversy. Hirono’s sexism coming out isn’t surprising,but this kind of racism is remarkable since both Kavanaugh and Ford are white.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top