Supreme court nominees

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kmcicco2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Just to clear up this point: does Kavanaugh in this setting have a right as a matter of justice to confront his accuser?
If you mean will lawyers fro him have an opportunity to cross-examine witness against him, then the answer is probably no. I suspect that only the Senators or the committees counsel will ask questions. That presupposes that this follows the form of the Thomas hearing. I wish that we would have learned from that sorry episode and avoided the theater.
 
"Ford’s attorney Lisa Banks said Tuesday on CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360” following the release of Ford’s letter that Ford will talk with the committee but that she’s not prepared for a hearing that soon.

“She will talk with the committee,” Banks said. “She is not prepared to talk with them at a hearing on Monday. This just came out 48 hours ago.”

Ford needs more time, after dwelling on the alleged incident for 30 odd years. Right.
More like Feinstein’s hit squad needs more time.
 
Last edited:
What’s new to hear? It’s out there via the letter,well that is unless she’s changed her story yet again
 
What haven’t we learned? Seems she’s having a hard time keeping her story straight.
Don’t you think it would b a good thing for such an honorable man with an impeccable record ,such as Judge Kavanaugh to grace the SCOTUS?
 
40.png
dvdjs:
There could hardly be a more complete expression of indifference to simple fairness than this
My comment was actually made in response to your assertion that Kavanaugh would surely be able to face his accuser were he to be criminally prosecuted, leaving unanswered the question of whether that was a right he possessed in this case.

Just to clear up this point: does Kavanaugh in this setting have a right as a matter of justice to confront his accuser?
You keep trying to cast this in terms of a criminal trial where such rights exist, and perhaps implying that if they don’t exist, then they ought to. Perhaps an analogy would help. The SCOTUS hearings are like a job interview. Suppose this were a job interview for a completely different job. Suppose you are applying for the job of coach of the University of Michigan football team. And suppose that during that process, the regents of the university heard from a student at your former job who says that you made sexually suggestive remarks to him in the shower. You might not get to confront that student. If the regents decide the accusation is credible and pass you over for the job, would that be a travesty of justice? Would you say that due process was not afforded to you? 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?
 
Last edited:
Kavanaugh is believable because there is no reason to disbelieve him.

But I can’t do both at once.
 
No offense, but that’s just a dumb thing to say.

Yes Christine, people who voluntarily come forward and accuse others of sexual crimes that aren’t provable whilst calling for a federal investigation are expected to remember details. Shocking.
 
I spoke with a Baptist preacher about his high school and mentioned the Catholic high schools. He said that there was a lot of alcohol use at Catholic schools and his high school had the rule that any student found using alcohol (or drugs) at his Baptist high school would be expelled.
This letter is another testimony that there was underage drinking at the parties. It is not really all that descriptive, and relies on rumors and gossip, but it does not help Mr. Kavanaugh. There is a big push now for women’s rights and it seems like the slightest alleged impropriety against a woman can derail a man’s career for a lifetime.
 
Why does it matter if the vote is held today, next Tuesday, or next month, or even in November, December, or early January? The same Senate will vote.
Would it be the same Senate after the November elections?
 
The republicans that are currently seated and the democrats that are currently seated control the votes until the new senators are seated in late January. Server guardless of who gets elected in November this Congress will be doing the voting until late January.
 
Last edited:
I It is not really all that descriptive, and relies on rumors and gossip, but it does not help Mr. Kavanaugh.
many a reputation smeared unjustly by rumors and gossip. Interesting on one hand you call out underage drinking at Catholic high school parties, but gloss over rumors and gossip.
 
You keep trying to cast this in terms of a criminal trial where such rights exist, and perhaps implying that if they don’t exist, then they ought to. Perhaps an analogy would help. The SCOTUS hearings are like a job interview. Suppose this were a job interview for a completely different job. Suppose you are applying for the job of coach of the University of Michigan football team. And suppose that during that process, the regents of the university heard from a student at your former job who says that you made sexually suggestive remarks to him in the shower. You might not get to confront that student. If the regents decide the accusation is credible and pass you over for the job, would that be a travesty of justice? Would you say that due process was not afforded to you? 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?
Justice is justice. Fair is fair. You seem to equivocate on doing the right thing because you view this as a job interview. This is no ordinary job…one side wants someone who says he will follow the constitution, the other side wants someone who ensure abortion rights, despite the constitution.
 
Interesting on one hand you call out underage drinking at Catholic high school parties, but gloss over rumors and gossip.
The writer of the letter admits herself that she does not have first hand knowledge of the incident, so it seemed to me that it did rely on rumors and gossip. As far as drinking alcohol goes, I don’t think that there ever was time up until 1975, when alcoholic beverages were allowed on California university campuses. Then in 1975 Jerry Brown, a Jesuit Catholic seminarian, became governor (first term 1975-1983), and the policy was changed and beer was allowed to be sold. After this term was finished, beer disappeared from California university campuses.
 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ome-interpersonal-verbs-conjugated-by-gender/
The example sentences below demonstrate the proper English usage of interpersonal verbs, inflected for mood, tense and gender.

He is drinking; he is drunk; he was drunk.
He is just 17; he was just 17.
Remember that he is just a kid; remember that he was just a kid; you must remember he was just a kid.
He cannot know what he is doing; he could not know what he was doing; he cannot have known what he was doing.
See your way clear to letting this go; you must see your way clear to letting this go.
He has his future ahead of him; he had his future ahead of him.
This will ruin his life; this is going to ruin his life.
He makes a mistake; he made a mistake; people make mistakes; mistakes were made.
He did something; she had something done to her; something happened.
These things happen.

She is drinking; she is drunk; she was drunk.
She is 15; she was 15.
She is putting herself in this position; she put herself in that position.
She should know better; she should have known better.
She must think about his future; she must think about her future.
She must say nothing; she will say nothing; she says nothing; she said nothing.
What happens here will stay here; what happens here stays here; what happens here stays.
She carries this; she will carry this.
An incident occurred; an incident derailed her life; her life was derailed.
These things happen.

She should not say anything; she will ruin his life; it will not be real unless she says something.
She should not have waited so long to speak; she should have said something; it could not have been real if she did not say anything.
These allegations will ruin his life; making these allegations will ruin someone’s life; she will ruin her life making these allegations.

She went on to lead a productive life, so how bad can it have been?
She did not go on to lead a productive life, so how can we trust what she has to say?
If it is true, why would she want to remain anonymous? Now that we know her name, we are coming to her house.

[…]

If it happened (although it did not happen), it would not have been wrong.
If it happened (it may have happened; he did not do it, but it may have happened), it was only to be expected.
These things happen. (He did not do it.)
These things happen. (Even if he did it, it was only a thing that sometimes happens.)

We cannot know what happened; she does not know what happened; he knows what happened.
Nothing happens; nothing happened; something happened to her; he did nothing; this is how it always happens.
This is how a thing he did became something that happened to her; this is how something he did becomes something that happens.

This is how this keeps happening.
 
Last edited:
Jerry Brown, fake Catholic.
What percentage of Catholics do you think might fall into that category? I am somewhat surprised at your comment since His Holiness Pope Francis and Jerry Brown have met and nothing like that was ever implied.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top