Legal/scotus thread

Depressing that Kavanaugh is going to get a lifetime appointment to the supreme court when he couldn't even bother to testify truthfully.
 
CK86 said:
Depressing that Kavanaugh is going to get a lifetime appointment to the supreme court when he couldn't even bother to testify truthfully.
Click to expand...

selectively deciding when perjury matters is, in fact, depressing.
he's also hyper-partisan. obviously we know where each justice generally stands. kavanaugh literally declared retribution to democrats (and the clintons...?) because a woman came forward with assault allegations against him.

i at least respect gorsuch as a person.
 
statements made under oath have been considered to be corroboration until now. it's blatantly clear kavanaugh lied repeatedly throughout this process. i have no idea why that doesn't matter to more people. he's obviously lying about certain things for a reason.
 
also, simply saying "it was so long ago" doesn't mean much. the investigation was anything but that. not interviewing Ford at all would be bizarre for an investigation. stating it will last a week is not an investigation. it was designed to be a sham from the start, and that fact wasn't even hidden.
 
Super said:
also, simply saying "it was so long ago" doesn't mean much. the investigation was anything but that. not interviewing Ford at all would be bizarre for an investigation. stating it will last a week is not an investigation. it was designed to be a sham from the start, and that fact wasn't even hidden.
Click to expand...

The White House didn't want the FBI to interview Ford because that would have required an interview of Kavanaugh. I think that's what they really wanted to avoid. A professional interrogation of Kavanaugh over the Ford and Rivera allegations.
 
nsacpi said:
The White House didn't want the FBI to interview Ford because that would have required an interview of Kavanaugh. I think that's what they really wanted to avoid. A professional interrogation of Kavanaugh over the Ford and Rivera allegations.
Click to expand...

i knew this from the beginning, but the senators who wanted to just vote yes but needed the political cover of an "investigation" negotiated for this sham. i did think it would be a little more thorough and tactful, tho. didn't expect an in-your-face sham.
 
nsacpi said:
Recognizing that none of us can be certain of these accounts, weighing the evidence available to me I would say that there is an over 90% chance that Kavanaugh did something along the lines of what Ford and Ramirez have described. And also an over 90% chance he has perjured himself in his denials. And something like a 99% probability he has perjured himself on smaller incidental matters such as calling Devil's Triangle a drinking game.

Let's call a spade a spade. He was a boorish drunk whose behavior very likely crossed over a line that disqualifies him from a seat on the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

That’s pretty much my take. I think that both Ford’s and Ramirez’s accusations are quite likely true, but the truth here is ultimately a casualty to a shell game about evidentiary standards, etc. I also think that Kav’s lies about drinking were material, as they went directly at establishing both his general credibility and the possibility that such incidents could have occurred. I agree that they were probably—quite intentionally—crafted in a way to keep him clear of a perjury charge.

I think that she offered credible testimony and he did not, but here we are. I agree with striker that this is obviously a political issue, and one in which none of the electeds on either side have particularly distinguished themselves.
 
nsacpi said:
I don't think the advent of Trump has pushed me leftward on any issues. I am still pro life. Hawkish on national security/foreign policy issues. I favor some redistribution via the tax code and various assistance programs, but designed in a way to minimize distortions to economic incentives. I want our immigration laws enforced, but generally see immigration as a plus for the country.
Click to expand...

Geez. You and I would get along politically. Only difference apparent to me here is the fact that I'm a bit of a pacifist. Its not a huge point for me, but I like to avoid military intervention whenever possible.
 
BeanieAntics said:
Geez. You and I would get along politically. Only difference apparent to me here is the fact that I'm a bit of a pacifist. Its not a huge point for me, but I like to avoid military intervention whenever possible.
Click to expand...

i favor intervention and destabilization of countries with good cuisines...adds to the quality of food over here...gastronomically derived foreign policy is the technical term...we could also base our immigration policy on a similar principle
 
Krgrecw said:
God no. They’ll say the reports are biased, incomplete, rigged from the start etc. or they’ll change thier narrative and talk about other things the judge has said or did to unqualify him
Click to expand...

I know you don't care, but I hope you are aware the FBI has been extremely limited in this investigation and it's not "free reign" as your boy Don has said it was.
 
nsacpi said:
i favor intervention and destabilization of countries with good cuisines...adds to the quality of food over here...gastronomically derived foreign policy is the technical term...we could also base our immigration policy on a similar principle
Click to expand...

Speak softly and carry a big fork.
 
Super said:
statements made under oath have been considered to be corroboration until now. it's blatantly clear kavanaugh lied repeatedly throughout this process. i have no idea why that doesn't matter to more people. he's obviously lying about certain things for a reason.
Click to expand...

What surprises me is people don't realize that lying is pretty much part of the SCOTUS confirmation process these days. Senators from the party adverse to the candidate try to ask gotcha questions or questions to make the candidate look bad and the candidate answers evasively.

The real root of the problem here probably isn't that Kavanaugh lied, it's that he didn't do a good job lying. He should have been more artful in his evasion. Honestly, the lack of being able to cleverly maneuver out of the way of the questions is a bigger red flag to me than his lying. I expect a SCOTUS justice to be more facile in his ability to flip questions on their head.
 
Jaw said:
I think there is a good chance Trump does that, but I would expect Congressional Republicans to quickly impeach him if that happens. They have to prefer the idea of working with President Pence, and removing Trump would remove the most motivating factor for Democratic voter enthusiasm. I'm somewhat surprised they haven't already done it, but maybe they think Trump voters can get them through the midterms.
Click to expand...

Trump will never be convicted of impeachment because it takes a two-thirds vote in the Senate and that would be an absolute longshot. I'm more referring to an instance where Trump does something egregiously against the Republican base (which could happen if the Democrats take the Senate and Trump decides to be Trump), which would open him up to a challenge at the convention in 2020 (think Teddy Kennedy taking on Carter). Pence would likely be politically neutered in such a situation because he would be tied to Trump as his running mate. That is just spitballing. I think a more likely scenario is that Trump would decide not to run again, but that is difficult for me to imagine as well.
 
striker42 said:
What surprises me is people don't realize that lying is pretty much part of the SCOTUS confirmation process these days. Senators from the party adverse to the candidate try to ask gotcha questions or questions to make the candidate look bad and the candidate answers evasively.

The real root of the problem here probably isn't that Kavanaugh lied, it's that he didn't do a good job lying. He should have been more artful in his evasion. Honestly, the lack of being able to cleverly maneuver out of the way of the questions is a bigger red flag to me than his lying. I expect a SCOTUS justice to be more facile in his ability to flip questions on their head.
Click to expand...

Let me get this straight. Our law student says that potential Supreme Court justices lying under oath is no big deal. So what's the argument that anyone should ever tell the truth under oath?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top