Kavanaugh SCOTUS Senate Judicial Hearing

[uclaLabrat]

Too early for me to be drinking, but thanks.
Just remember, here in this country every citizen is entitled to due process and they are considered innocent until proven guilty.

Again, since you clearly can't remember, that's the burden of proof in a criminal trial, not a job interview.

 

[IronWing]

You call this reasonable odds? You're about to hire a qualified person when at the last possible minute a competing candidate says he attempted rape 36 years ago with no corroborating evidence. You mean to tell me you would take that seriously?

Point 1) Kavanaugh isn't qualified.
Point 2) What competing candidate?

 

[Atreus21]

Point 1) Kavanaugh isn't qualified.

Of course he is. No one seriously contests his qualifications.

Point 2) What competing candidate?

No one is competing with kavanaugh for the SCOTUS appointment. The point was to indicate that the accusing party has a clear ulterior motive. No one, certainly not democrats, is concerned about what happened to Ford apart from its political utility. Otherwise it would've come out at the very latest during the initial hearing.

 

[Indus]

You must include your own commentary in any post outside of the joke thread in P&N.

Perknose
Forum Director

 

[IronWing]

Of course he is. No one seriously contests his qualifications.

Republican Party hacks pretend he's qualified but that doesn't make it so. His desire to increase presidential powers is in direct opposition to the Constitution. Placing Kavanaugh on the court would be a disservice to our nation.

 

[Indus]

You call that, Qualified???

 

[uclaLabrat]

Of course he is. No one seriously contests his qualifications.



No one is competing with kavanaugh for the SCOTUS appointment. The point was to indicate that the accusing party has a clear ulterior motive. No one, certainly not democrats, is concerned about what happened to Ford apart from its political utility. Otherwise it would've come out at the very latest during the initial hearing.

You mean where he perjured himself with regards to how he received stolen documents and how he lacks judgement (even at a young age) with regard to how he conducts himself with women?

Yeah, why would I consider either of those as disqualifying criteria in a SCOTUS appointment? Damn you're an idiot.

 

[Jhhnn]

Republican Party hacks pretend he's qualified but that doesn't make it so. His desire to increase presidential powers is in direct opposition to the Constitution. Placing Kavanaugh on the court would be a disservice to our nation.

His representation of pro-lifers who claim birth control pills cause abortion is indicative of some bias wrt Roe, but, uhh, never mind. His dissent in a case where pro-lifers were trying to prevent an underage illegal immigrant from obtaining an abortion was utterly disingenuous. His rulings in general bend over backwards to advantage the haves over the have nots.

He's been indoctrinated, groomed, positioned & coached all along the way to be just the kind of Justice the right wing wants so badly. Hell- they even changed the rules to make it happen.

 

[Atreus21]

You call that, Qualified???

Political cartoons in lieu of argument. Splendid.

 

[Jhhnn]

You mean where he perjured himself with regards to how he received stolen documents and how he lacks judgement (even at a young age) with regard to how he conducts himself with women?

Yeah, why would I consider either of those as disqualifying criteria in a SCOTUS appointment? Damn you're an idiot.

Well, yeh, there is that whole thing about stolen emails. The answers are probably in all the documentation the GOP won't release. I mean, who cares, right? They already know he's been less than truthful. He's been part of the team for a long time.

 

[Atreus21]

Republican Party hacks pretend he's qualified but that doesn't make it so. His desire to increase presidential powers is in direct opposition to the Constitution. Placing Kavanaugh on the court would be a disservice to our nation.

He's been on the DC circuit court of appeals for 12 years and authored some 300 opinions. He's a graduate of Yale law. He clerked under Anthony kennedy.

If democrats are determined to attack the man, they better stick to disingenuous attempted rape allegations from the 80s, because his qualifications are beyond serious question.

 

[jackstar7]

He's been on the DC circuit court of appeals for 12 years and authored some 300 opinions. He's a graduate of Yale law. He clerked under Anthony kennedy.

If democrats are determined to attack the man, they better stick to disingenuous attempted rape allegations from the 80s, because his qualifications are beyond serious question.

You are not qualified to have that opinion.

 

[Atreus21]

You are not qualified to have that opinion.

Haha. I'm sure every leftist in this thread is though.

 

[jackstar7]

Haha. I'm sure every leftist in this thread is though.

Whatever you say. I know you can see that abortion ban a-comin' and it's getting you so thirsty for it.

Such a small tyrant you are.

 

[Indus]

Political cartoons in lieu of argument. Splendid.

Atleast you can comprehend a cartoon!

 

[Indus]

He's been on the DC circuit court of appeals for 12 years and authored some 300 opinions. He's a graduate of Yale law. He clerked under Anthony kennedy.

If democrats are determined to attack the man, they better stick to disingenuous attempted rape allegations from the 80s, because his qualifications are beyond serious question.

Yes super qualified in lying under oath, but only quasi qualified in sexual assault!

 

[alien42]

Haha. I'm sure every leftist in this thread is though.

You know how I can tell you are a single minded simpleton?

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Again, this isn't a trial and he hasn't been denied due process in any way. All I know about this case is that the accusation seems credible and should be investigated before he gets confirmed.

Do you want the 6+ years of the Clinton Whitewater investigation or the 2+ years and counting of the Mueller investigation on Russian collusion before Kavanaugh gets confirmed?

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Point 1) Kavanaugh isn't qualified.
Point 2) What competing candidate?

He got the highest rating from the American Bar Association.
http://www.abajournal.com/news/arti..._a_well-qualified_rating_hearings_begin_today

"
The confirmation hearing for U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh begins Tuesday, with an introduction by a liberal litigator and later testimony by the ABA committee that rates judicial nominees.

The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary on Friday gave its highest rating of well-qualified to Kavanaugh, a 53-year-old judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Kavanaugh was nominated July 9 to replace Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who announced his retirement June 27. Kavanaugh is a former Kennedy clerk.

The ABA standing committee evaluates nominees based on professional competence, integrity and judicial temperament. Two representatives from the ABA committee are scheduled to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Friday. They are standing committee chair Paul Moxley of Salt Lake City and former committee member John Tarpley of Nashville, Tennessee, who led the review.

Among those scheduled to introduce Kavanaugh on Tuesday is Arnold & Porter partner Lisa Blatt, a Supreme Court litigator who describes herself as a liberal Democrat and feminist, the National Law Journal reports. She had supported Kavanaugh in an Aug. 2 Politico op-ed that called Kavanaugh a supremely qualified “superstar” who deserves to be confirmed."

 

[ivwshane]

Do you want the 6+ years of the Clinton Whitewater investigation or the 2+ years and counting of the Mueller investigation on Russian collusion before Kavanaugh gets confirmed?

I know you are stuck on stupid but I have no idea how you came to the conclusion that a background check would now become a full on non criminal investigation that would take more than a few weeks.

 

[fskimospy]

What standard of proof should suffice then, if not a legal one?

Certainly a higher standard than simply making an accusation and then backing into a defensive crouch when challenged.

Of course not a legal one. What are we, nuts?

The standard to hire a person to a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court should be different than the standard to imprison someone. How insane would one have to be to believe otherwise.

You call this reasonable odds? You're about to hire a qualified person when at the last possible minute a competing candidate says he attempted rape 36 years ago with no corroborating evidence. You mean to tell me you would take that seriously?

It’s not a competing candidate, it’s someone who knew him. Of course I would take them seriously, now insane or totally partisan would someone have to be not to? You would have to be off the charts bonkers to ignore it.

 

[Jaskalas]

Third Named Witness Rejects Accuser’s Allegations

Ms. Keyer, whom CNN confirms is “a lifelong friend of Ford’s,” is the third named witness to deny any knowledge of the allegations. The other two, Mark Judge and Patrick Smyth, issued written statements to that effect earlier in the week.
​

That's third witness, four people VS the accuser.

 

[fskimospy]

He's been on the DC circuit court of appeals for 12 years and authored some 300 opinions. He's a graduate of Yale law. He clerked under Anthony kennedy.

If democrats are determined to attack the man, they better stick to disingenuous attempted rape allegations from the 80s, because his qualifications are beyond serious question.

How do you feel about the fact that he’s likely perjured himself multiple times?

 

[fskimospy]

Third Named Witness Rejects Accuser’s Allegations

Ms. Keyer, whom CNN confirms is “a lifelong friend of Ford’s,” is the third named witness to deny any knowledge of the allegations. The other two, Mark Judge and Patrick Smyth, issued written statements to that effect earlier in the week.
​

That's third witness, four people VS the accuser.

What? Denying knowledge of something is not testifying against it.

This is basic logic.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

It's not even a case of She said, He said. In her letter to Feinstein, Ford named 4 people that were at the party with her. Those were Brett Kavanaugh, Mark Judge, PJ Smyth and Leland Keyser. Now all 4 of her witnesses that she named in the letter have sworn under felony penalty that either they were not there at the party or that it didn't happen.


"Simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford," lawyer Howard J. Walsh said in a statement sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

CNN reports that " Keyser is a lifelong friend of Ford's."

"Keyser previously coached golf at Georgetown University and is now executive producer of Bob Beckel's podcast. Keyser is the ex-wife of Beckel, a former Democratic operative and commentator. A search on OpenSecrets.org reveals Keyser's only political donation has been to former Democratic senator Byron Dorgan.

Keyser's denial, as a female lifelong friend and Ford's last named witness, is the most consequential development that has occurred since Ford publicly stepped forward last Sunday and detailed her allegations to the Washington Post. Ford's allegation of the 1982 incident was told to no one until a 2012 therapy session, when Kavanaugh was first touted in the media as the most likely GOP Supreme Court nominee.

All of Ford's named witnesses of the party, both male and female, have now denied any recollection of attending such a party."


https://www.weeklystandard.com/john...ss-denies-ever-attending-party-with-kavanaugh



"In written testimony sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee, a third named witness has rejected the allegations made by Judge Kavanaugh’s accuser. Having been asked by a Senate staffer to comment on the charges advanced against the nominee, a lawyer for Leland Ingham Keyser wrote:

Simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.

Under 18 U.S.C § 1001, letters to the Judiciary Committee are subject to criminal penalty if false.


Ms. Keyer, whom CNN confirms is “a lifelong friend of Ford’s,” is the third named witness to deny any knowledge of the allegations. The other two, Mark Judge and Patrick Smyth, issued written statements to that effect earlier in the week. Thus far, nobody has backed up the account advanced by Kavanaugh’s accuser, while Kavanaugh and three other named witnesses have rejected it outright."

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/third-named-witness-rejects-kavanaughs-accusers-allegations/