Nevermind that the 10th Circuit Court is still investigating his temperament and ethics issues, at the request of Chief Justice Roberts.
The other 8 justices are a bit more concerned with their perceived legitimacy with Kavanass on the bench. At the very least, they need to provide additional cover of an "impartial investigation".
https://www.forbes.com/sites/steved...it-to-investigate-kavanaugh-ethics-questions/
Hey look Brett, that's called integrity. Something you will never have.Article summarizes how it ended up with Roberts:
These complaints were initially received by the U.S. Court of Appeals prior to Kavanaugh’s seating on the Supreme Court. Chief Judge Merrick Garland — whose nomination to the Supreme Court was blocked by Senate Republicans—recused himself from the matter. The complaints were then passed to Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson, whom President George H.W. Bush nominated to the bench.
Well, I suppose it's moderately better than having your former benchmates investigate?
Like I said, they are going with the friendliest "impartial" court to provide cover, because without doing anything the legitimacy of the highest court is in question. Assuming Kavanaugh is cleared, that may also mean he no longer has to recuse himself from cases brought by liberals.
Article summarizes how it ended up with Roberts:
These complaints were initially received by the U.S. Court of Appeals prior to Kavanaugh’s seating on the Supreme Court. Chief Judge Merrick Garland — whose nomination to the Supreme Court was blocked by Senate Republicans—recused himself from the matter. The complaints were then passed to Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson, whom President George H.W. Bush nominated to the bench.
Judge Henderson dismissed some of the complaints made against Judge Kavanaugh as frivolous. But she concluded that more than a dozen complaints were substantive enough to warrant investigation by an impartial panel and that they should not be handled by Judge Kavanaugh’s fellow judges in the D.C. Circuit. She referred them to Chief Justice Roberts, who has now referred them to the 10th Circuit.
I think Roberts did this because the unprecedented referral likely gives them a great excuse to claim the issue is now moot due to Kavanaugh now being on the SC. It's a joke that it was sat on so long to give them the convenient out. Democrats need to pack the court fast, or we'll end up with a lot more hard right BS from this court.
Dems should add one and make it ten at the next opportunity. If a vote is tied, then the issue is probably not clear enough to become precedent anyway.
In politics and policy it's supposed to work that way. In science? no, but nice try.Hmm what was it you said:
Being a gullible and unquestioning herd animal makes you a sheep. As i've said before, it's about money and control. The money is the 10 -12 Trillion dollars the cause demands. Political policy authority is what they want control over.
They would need to have the House, the Senate and the Presidency to pass any court stacking legislation. It ain't gonna happen anytime soon.Dems should add one and make it ten at the next opportunity. If a vote is tied, then the issue is probably not clear enough to become precedent anyway.
If the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.Yeah I know, extremist changes is getting judges approved just because the negro put them up. Just like the changing standards of behavior when the orange guy took over from the black guy.
Damn you're an asshole.I doubt you actually think he was an excellent pick or even know much about his jurisprudence. For example I doubt you think net neutrality is unconstitutional on free speech grounds.
You have a lot of growing up to do.
Yes, to get it out of Washington DC. A deliberate move by Roberts. It's according to the USSC rules and it's favorable to Justice Kavanaugh. Any accusation or charge against a Justice is a Federal matter and must be handled in the Federal system.Is there a reason why it went to the 10th Circuit or is this by the discretion of Roberts? Because that's a really conservative circuit court, if not the most. The judge Roberts handed it to is also on Trump's short list for the SC. It's already annoying how Roberts sat on this till confirmation.
Yes, to get it out of Washington DC. A deliberate move by Roberts. It's according to the USSC rules and it's favorable to Justice Kavanaugh. Any accusation or charge against a Justice is a Federal matter and must be handled in the Federal system.
I think Roberts did this because the unprecedented referral likely gives them a great excuse to claim the issue is now moot due to Kavanaugh now being on the SC. It's a joke that it was sat on so long to give them the convenient out. Democrats need to pack the court fast, or we'll end up with a lot more hard right BS from this court.
Like sitting on the letter from Mrs Ford for weeks...
So you are trying to tell us the GOP meltdown over this would not have happened if Ford's letter had been released 3 weeks earlier??"leaked" right when the confirmation hearings started...coincidence???
So you are trying to tell us the GOP meltdown over this would not have happened if Ford's letter had been released 3 weeks earlier??
Really think so??
Seriously??
So you are trying to tell us the GOP meltdown over this would not have happened if Ford's letter had been released 3 weeks earlier??
Really think so??
Seriously??
So you are trying to tell us the GOP meltdown over this would not have happened if Ford's letter had been released 3 weeks earlier??
Really think so??
Seriously??
It's interesting that they are far more outraged by the letter being leaked than they are about the contents of the letter.
Well, not really. I think it's clear they don't give a shit about the contents of the letter but they know they can't say that so instead they turn to one of these silly process arguments to avoid dealing with it.
Especially when the contents of the letter weren't accurate or fostered by false memories aided by a therapist. At least according to a Colbert writer , we ruined his life.It's interesting that they are far more outraged by the letter being leaked than they are about the contents of the letter.
Well, not really. I think it's clear they don't give a shit about the contents of the letter but they know they can't say that so instead they turn to one of these silly process arguments to avoid dealing with it.
Especially when the contents of the letter weren't accurate or fostered by false memories aided by a therapist. At least according to a Colbert writer , we ruined his life.
https://www.foxnews.com/entertainme...-im-just-glad-we-ruined-brett-kavanaughs-life
"Claiming"? Seems pretty legit to me, since his life was never in danger of being ruined.Dumas apologized on Sunday, claiming she was being "sarcastic" because Kavanaugh's elevation to the Supreme Court demonstrated that his life had not, in fact, been entirely derailed by the accusations as some Republicans had claimed.
It's interesting that they are far more outraged by the letter being leaked than they are about the contents of the letter.
Well, not really. I think it's clear they don't give a shit about the contents of the letter but they know they can't say that so instead they turn to one of these silly process arguments to avoid dealing with it.
Its interesting that no one else has corroborated her story...but then again you would only have a problem if it was a republican was accusing a democrat...
That's pretty standard for most sexual assaults and rapes as they are generally done in private.
You are confusing the standard that the government must meet in order to imprison someone against their will and the standard that it should meet to deny someone lifetime employment in a position of immense, unreviewable power.In all of those assault cases, there is corroborating evidence...bruise marks, rape kits, etc (this why you don't wait 36 years). If the victim cannot remember the time, place and other details of the crime, NOTHING will happen to the accused.
If you choose to bring up a charge over 3 decades later and no one else remembers so they can back up your story, how do you expect anyone to believe you, regardless of whether is happened or not...not remembering any details does not help your case either.
You are confusing the standard that the government must meet in order to imprison someone against their will and the standard that it should meet to deny someone lifetime employment in a position of immense, unreviewable power.
If this sort of accusation was made against someone seeking employment in a local high school they would never get the job. Apparently you guys think the Supreme Court should have a lower standard. It is unclear to me why anyone would think this other than partisanship.
The same way we judge tons of things for which there is no concrete evidence either way. You have on one hand someone who brought up the accusation long before Kavanaugh was nominated to the court and who gave very credible testimony and then you have the guy where people from all over are saying 'he's lying'.
If you scrub away your imagined (D) and (R)s you'll see it's pretty obvious who is more credible. More importantly, this isn't something where rational people need 100% certainty. Like with the school example before would you hire someone if you thought there was a 50% chance they were a sex offender? 25% chance? Of course not. So why here?