Supreme court nominees

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kmcicco2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Suudy said:
Temperament and bias are only disqualifying prior to be confirmed.
Click to expand...
The claim that Kavanaugh lacks the right temperament to be on the Supreme Court because of the animated defense of his integrity is farcical. The term “grasping at straws” perfectly captures it. Just as we wear different clothes for different occasions, we have different behaviors for different occasions as well, and it is simply ludicrous to expect one to behave “judicially” everywhere and every time.

The proper evaluation of his judicial temperament is made when he is acting in his position as judge. We have twelve years of examples of that and in not one instance is there even the slightest suggestion of impropriety.

The disappointment is not that the Democrats and media have floated this charge, it is that so many otherwise reasonable people have so easily accepted it. Yet again, the evidence of his entire life is simply dismissed. And people wonder why he got angry.
 
Ender said:
The claim that Kavanaugh lacks the right temperament to be on the Supreme Court because of the animated defense of his integrity is farcical
Click to expand...
I don’t know what informs your sense of farce, but more than a couple of thousand highly integrated into the profession, including a retired SCOTUS judge, disagree with you.
 
dvdjs said:
I don’t know what informs your sense of farce, but more than a couple of thousand highly integrated into the profession, including a retired SCOTUS judge, disagree with you.
Click to expand...
If you assume that truth is determined by a vote then this might mean something. Otherwise, not so much.
 
Ender said:
If you assume that truth is determined by a vote then this might mean something.
Click to expand...
Not at all, just that in informing a reasonable sense of proper judicial temperament some cred should be given to people in the business of forming it.
 
dvdjs said:
Not at all, just that in informing a reasonable sense of proper judicial temperament some cred should be given to people in the business of forming it.
Click to expand...
You mean like this person?

Lisa Blatt, who has argued more cases before the Supreme Court than any other woman in history testified, quote, “By any objective measure, Judge Kavanaugh is clearly qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. His opinions are invariably thoughtful and fair.”

Or these people?

The ABA concluded that his integrity, judicial temperament and professional confidence met the highest standards.
 
Last edited:
Ender said:
If what he said was true then how can it possibly be considered bias? Further, he is not acting as a judge in those hearings, and his right to defend himself against such scurrilous charges is the same right we all possess.
Click to expand...
EnglishTeacher said:
“May” be true. It wasn’t the kind of thing you can say with certainty is true.
Click to expand...
Yet in this case there really is no doubt. From Senator Collins floor speech:

But today we have come to the conclusion of a confirmation process that has become so dysfunctional, it looks more like a caricature of a gutter-level political campaign than a solemn occasion.

Within moments of that announcement, special interest groups raced to be the first to oppose him, including one organization that didn’t even bother to fill in the judge’s name on its prewritten press release.

Since that time we have seen special-interest groups whip their followers into a frenzy by spreading misrepresentations and outright falsehoods about Judge Kavanaugh’s judicial record. Over-the-top rhetoric and distortions of his record and testimonies at his first hearing produced short-lived headlines, which although debunked hours later, continued to live on and be spread through social media. Interest groups have also spent an unprecedented amount of dark money opposing this nomination. Our Supreme Court confirmation process has been in steady decline for more than 30 years. One can only hope that the Kavanaugh nomination is where the process has finally hit rock bottom.
 
Last edited:
This new mantra from the left re Judge Kavanaugh’s temperament is just so transparent. Notice how this became their main argument following the hearings.? Plan “B” is what they embraced after realizing their smear tactics along with the flimsy accounting by CBF wan’t getting them anywhere.
As the week progressed and their witnessess’ Accusations became more ludicrous this is all they had left.Pathetic and shameful
 
Last edited:
Jeanne_S said:
their main argument following the hearings.
Click to expand...
Duh? That is when he displayed the petulance, the rank partisanship, the hostility to being questioned, the evasive and misleading testimony.
 
Last edited:
If you research diligently, you can find photographs of protesters receiving their pay-offs.
 
Ender said:
Right. How dare he fight back.
Click to expand...
There are all sorts of ways to defend one’s self.
Some fit the decorum of a SCOTUS justice better than others.
Even Kavanaugh acknowledges that he crossed the line. Do you think that his apology was disingenuous?
 
Ender said:
Nope, I think it was unnecessary, as his reaction was hardly unprovoked.
Click to expand...
Fortunately, he disagrees with you. Please consider:

www.washingtonexaminer.com

The Anger of Brett Kavanaugh

“Anger a short madness: for it is equally devoid of self-control, regardless of decorum, forgetful of kinship, obstinately engrossed in whatever it begins
www.washingtonexaminer.com www.washingtonexaminer.com

“Anger [is] a short madness: for it is equally devoid of self-control, regardless of decorum, forgetful of kinship, obstinately engrossed in whatever it begins to do, deaf to reason and advice . . . and very like a falling rock which breaks itself to pieces upon the very thing which it crushes.”

— Seneca
 
Last edited:
dvdjs said:
Fortunately, he disagrees with you. Please consider:

“Anger [is] a short madness: for it is equally devoid of self-control, regardless of decorum, forgetful of kinship, obstinately engrossed in whatever it begins to do, deaf to reason and advice . . . and very like a falling rock which breaks itself to pieces upon the very thing which it crushes.”

— Seneca
Click to expand...
I’ll call your Roman and raise you two saints:

…evil may be found in anger, when, to wit, one is angry, more or less than right reason demands. But if one is angry in accordance with right reason, one’s anger is deserving of praise.; (Aquinas ST II-II 158,1)

Only the person who becomes irate without reason, sins. Whoever becomes irate for a just reason is not guilty. Because, if ire were lacking, the science of God would not progress, judgments would not be sound, and crimes would not be repressed.

Further, the person who does not become irate when he has cause to be, sins. For an unreasonable patience is the hotbed of many vices: it fosters negligence, and stimulates not only the wicked, but above all the good, to do wrong. (St. John Chrysostom)
 
A little more on Acqainas discussing Chrysostom.

Ire may be understood in two ways. In one way , as a simple movement of the will that inflicts punishment not through passion, but by virtue of a judgment of the reason: and in this case, without a doubt, lack of ire is a sin. This is how Chrysostom understands ire when he says: ‘Ire, when it has a cause, is not ire but judgment. For properly speaking, ire is a movement of passion. And when a man is irate with just cause, his ire does not derive from passion. Rather, it is an act of judgment, not of ire.”

( Summa Theologiae , II, II, q. 158, art. 8)

There is nothing wrong with being irate against what her perceived was unjust. That reaction help to cultivate the idea of justice. But the expression that lashes out and responds with passion, rather than the virtuous judgement is the problem. That comes from the subhead in the link: His anger wasn’t the problem; the expression of it was.
 
dvdjs said:
There is nothing wrong with being irate against what her perceived was unjust.
Click to expand...
Exactly, and that was precisely how judge Kavanaugh was treated both by the media and by the Democrats on that committee. It was profoundly unjust.
 
Ender said:
Exactly,
Click to expand...
We are talking of his response to it, which was inappropriate.

At the same time, the idea that his treatment by the Senate was profoundly unjust rings hollow.
He avoided a serious investigation of the allegations against him and will sit on the SCOTUS.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top