Supreme court nominees

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kmcicco2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You had that during 30 plus hours of questioning. He lost poise at the point allegations were thrown at him at the last minute. I question the motivation of anyone who thinks that was not one should expect. If mud thrown does not stick, try something else. If Kavanaugh had a problem with judicial temperament it would have shown itself during the years he has been on the court.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Well, there is that pesky reason that you are forgetting - the fact that Ford says it happened.
Click to expand...
As I said, there are two options: either evidence matters or it doesn’t. Either an allegation can be substantiated or it can’t. If you choose to believe someone solely on the basis that a charge was made you have entirely discarded the concept of justice, and that pretty much describes the Democrat position in this entire vile mess.

Nothing supports Ford’s allegation. Nothing, yet there are still people who choose to believe it. I imagine I would be tempted to accept a baseless charge leveled by a political activist on my side, but I would hope to have the fortitude to reject a charge that had been investigated and was completely unsupported by any evidence.
 
ConstantLearner said:
Here are some:
Click to expand...
I looked at only the first one, but I imagine the meme is the same in all of them. Here’s what Huffpost considers a lie: Kavanaugh claimed the three witnesses Ford named all refuted her story, when (according to them) really all they did was fail to corroborate it. This is lying? Given that with the FBI report the Ford story has collapsed the only thing left for Democrats to do is try to get Kavanaugh on perjury charges.

For people who might be on the sidelines about this issue, know this: there is no bottom. There is no point below which Kavanaugh’s opponents will not go to sink his nomination. Their concern is understandable - even as their tactics are underhanded - given that without the judiciary imposing its social choices on the public they could never be implemented. They could never pass through any legislature, even one controlled by liberals. It is losing control of the courts that they fear, because with that they lose the ability to implement their social agenda.
 
Theo520 said:
Smith is pathetic, his argument is based on “he did it” and should just apologize.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you might read the article more carefully.
He is very tentative on what “it” actually is. But know awful testimony when he sees it, especially testimony that takes us “for fools”.
Theo520 said:
Glad he’s off the court if he reaches guilty conclusions with the evidence presented…
Click to expand...
By what standard. preponderance of the evidence or beyond reasonable doubt?
 
Ender said:
Well the FBI report is now out and guess what? There is no corroborating evidence
Click to expand...
Really, Grassley proclaimed that there was a prohibition on disclosing or even characterizing the contents.
Who leaked?
 
marybobo said:
it would have shown itself during the years he has been on the court.
Click to expand...
It has shown itself now. The ABA withdrew its endorsement. Over 1700 law faculty have signed a petition urging that he not be confirmed.
 
dvdjs said:
Really, Grassley proclaimed that there was a prohibition on disclosing or even characterizing the contents.
Click to expand...
Well I didn’t get the memo.
dvdjs said:
It has shown itself now. The ABA withdrew its endorsement.
Click to expand...
Actually, no, the ABA did not withdraw its endorsement. The president of the ABA sent out a letter expressing that opinion implying it was from the ABA when in fact it was only his personal position. More shenanigans from the supporters of Borking.
 
Last edited:
dvdjs said:
It has shown itself now. The ABA withdrew its endorsement. Over 1700 law faculty have signed a petition urging that he not be confirmed.
Click to expand...
That is very telling, more powerful even than Ford’s testimony. She was talking about an alleged incident 30-plus years ago, and her memory was murky; the ABA and the law faculty are talking about now.
 
Exactly, he assumed guilt based on his feel for the testimony.
Not evidence presented.
So he’s a sucker for crying girls.
 
Ender said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
Well, there is that pesky reason that you are forgetting - the fact that Ford says it happened.
Click to expand...
As I said, there are two options: either evidence matters or it doesn’t. Either an allegation can be substantiated or it can’t. If you choose to believe someone solely on the basis that a charge was made you have entirely discarded the concept of justice, and that pretty much describes the Democrat position in this entire vile mess.

Nothing supports Ford’s allegation. Nothing, yet there are still people who choose to believe it. I imagine I would be tempted to accept a baseless charge leveled by a political activist on my side, but I would hope to have the fortitude to reject a charge that had been investigated and was completely unsupported by any evidence.
Click to expand...
You are failing to grasp the difference between rejecting a claim and not believing a claim. You said there was every reason to reject the claim. I said I did not believe the claim. Nor do I disbelieve it. You have lots of straw men in your argument.
 
Last edited:
ConstantLearner said:
That is very telling, more powerful even than Ford’s testimony. She was talking about an alleged incident 30-plus years ago, and her memory was murky; the ABA and the law faculty are talking about now.
Click to expand...
The ABA stands by their recommendation.

The law faculty letter is a joke, I assume you haven’t read it.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
You are failing to grasp the difference between rejecting a claim and non believing a claim. You said there was every reason to reject the claim. I said I did not believe the claim. Nor do I disbelieve it. You have lots of straw men in your argument.
Click to expand...
I have no trouble appreciating the difference you allude to, but in the end the choice is binary: either we behave as if we accept her claim or we act as if we reject it. When the facts are presented we choose option A or option B. There is no action C of “Well, maybe it’s true, I just don’t know.” Either oppose Kavanaugh or don’t, but it is unreasonable to oppose Kavanaugh on the basis that the charge might be true.

As I said, either evidence matters or it doesn’t. Either we will allow unsubstantiated charges to destroy peoples lives or we won’t. I don’t find that concept all that difficult to grasp.
 
dvdjs said:
She is on firmer ground. There was no order prohibiting characterizing what is not in it.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Here is one law professor’s objection to the internet letter being ‘signed’ by other profs.
Professor Volokh wrote:

I hope that, before you sign on to the letter, you imagine how friends of yours would react if they were accused of a heinous crime that they did not commit – and this was done on national (international) television, with undoubted partisan motivation.

Would I be “temperate” if faced with such public accusations? Courteous? Impartial? Would I really refrain from anything that might be called “inflammatory,” and be sure never to “interrupt”? Would you?

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 .”
Click to expand...
 
Ender said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
You are failing to grasp the difference between rejecting a claim and non believing a claim. You said there was every reason to reject the claim. I said I did not believe the claim. Nor do I disbelieve it. You have lots of straw men in your argument.
Click to expand...
I have no trouble appreciating the difference you allude to, but in the end the choice is binary: either we behave as if we accept her claim or we act as if we reject it.
Click to expand...
It is binary with regard to people who are charged with making a decision. I am not one of those people. And even if I was one of those people and I decided what action to take, I would still wonder if my decision was correct.
Either oppose Kavanaugh or don’t, but it is unreasonable to oppose Kavanaugh on the basis that the charge might be true.
Click to expand...
Oh, I do oppose Kavanaugh, but not on the basis that the charge might be true. I oppose him on the basis of his disgraceful behavior in the hearing - even assuming he is innocent of the charge from Ford. At this point I would not vote to convict him of a crime, but neither would I vote for him to become a Supreme Court Justice.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top