Legal/scotus thread

striker42 said:
Your list reveals that your judgement is based on partisanism. .
Click to expand...

I never quite got what the slur was to the term "partisanship"
this:



“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.”

Elie Wiesel would have been 90 today.
 
Last edited:
The statement by Kavanaugh's former Yale classmate, Chad Ludington, crystalizes a big problem for him--his blatant lying under oath about the extent of his drinking and his behavior when drunk. If the GOP insists on pushing him through I expect the Dems to seek to impeach him for perjury if they win the House.
 
nsacpi said:
The statement by Kavanaugh's former Yale classmate, Chad Luddington, crystallizes a big problem for him--his blatant lying under oath about the extent of his drinking and his behavior when drunk. If the GOP insists on pushing him through I expect the Dems to seek to impeach him for perjury if they win the House.
Click to expand...

Removing him will be virtually impossible. Also, I'm not sure the Dems want to set that precedent by trying.

Also, it's almost impossible to get someone on perjury for something like this. It's too based in opinion and recollection. Absent a recording of Kavanaugh saying "I gotta keep the committee from finding out about all the times I blacked out drunk", you're not getting him.
 
striker42 said:
Removing him will be virtually impossible. Also, I'm not sure the Dems want to set that precedent by trying.

Also, it's almost impossible to get someone on perjury for something like this. It's too based in opinion and recollection. Absent a recording of Kavanaugh saying "I gotta keep the committee from finding out about all the times I blacked out drunk", you're not getting him.
Click to expand...

impeachment is not the same as a criminal trial...different evidentiary standards for one thing...I think it is evident he has been lying about his drinking and behavior when drunk...he also lied about Devil's Triangle being a drinking game
 
I agree that perjury isn’t likely on the table absent a paper trail, but I’m still flabbergasted at the degree of myopia around the fact that my dude lied, fillibustered, and misrepresented his way through that hearing. Apparently no one here who nominally supports him is willing to cop to that.
 
nsacpi said:
impeachment is not the same as a criminal trial...different evidentiary standards for one thing...I think it is evident he has been lying about his drinking and behavior when drunk...he also lied about Devil's Triangle being a drinking game
Click to expand...

True, but you're not getting any Senator who sits the fence on a charge that someone says they think Kavanaugh got blackout drunk. You need something more solid.

The Devil's Triangle thing was just dumb. The Dems would be beyond stupid to try to use that as a basis to impeach (which wouldn't succeed). It would create the standard of digging for embarrassing stories from the past of candidates to try to get grounds to impeach in the future.
 
Julio3000 said:
I agree that perjury isn’t likely on the table absent a paper trail, but I’m still flabbergasted at the degree of myopia around the fact that my dude lied, fillibustered, and misrepresented his way through that hearing. Apparently no one here who nominally supports him is willing to cop to that.
Click to expand...

Ludington's account has a detail that might be the equivalent of a paper trail...someone ended up in jail as a result of one of Kavanaugh's drunken escapades.
 
I legit cannot fathom that there’s any kind of real debate over a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court for a guy who’s willing to lie as obviously, frequently, and transparently as Kavanaugh has...and you can extend that record beyond the recent hearing.
 
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/30/...tion=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage


Senator Mazie K. Hirono, a Hawaii Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said on ABC’s “This Week” that any investigation that limits whom the F.B.I. can interview and which leads agents can follow would be a “farce.”


Senator Amy Klobuchar, a Minnesota Democrat who is also on the committee, described what she said was micromanaging from the White House: “You can’t interview this person, you can’t look at this time period, you can only look at these people from one side of the street from when they were growing up.”
 
Last edited:
42662774_1897017670385569_4619980497924128768_n.jpg
 
and where have we heard this in the past two days.
Marching orders some would say:
****, I will say --- Trump says jump and his minions say how high.
.............................................

Publicly, though, Mr. Trump directed his ire at Democrats,

accusing them in a tweet on Sunday of playing politics by complaining about

the investigation and saying they would never be satisfied with it.
 
The hired gun inquisitor says "no reasonable prosecutor" would bring case against Kavanaugh when that is not the threshold of wrongdoing that matters. No reasonable person would vote to confirm Kavanaugh to a lifetime seat on the highest court in the land with this many questions hanging over his credibility.
 
Runnin said:
The hired gun inquisitor says "no reasonable prosecutor" would bring case against Kavanaugh when that is not the threshold of wrongdoing that matters. No reasonable person would vote to confirm Kavanaugh to a lifetime seat on the highest court in the land with this many questions hanging over his credibility.
Click to expand...

Sure they would. The vast majority of Senators would vote for Satan himself so long as he was going to vote on the court the way they wanted.
 
DoVwB5ZW0AA_DcZ.jpg



(((SusanSilverman)))
‏Verified account @RabbaSusan



He'd be so much prettier if he just smiled.

#kavanaughisjusttooangry
 
Well, it was fun while it lasted but I clearly can't support the nomination of someone who attended a UB40 concert.
 
striker42 said:
Sure they would. The vast majority of Senators would vote for Satan himself so long as he was going to vote on the court the way they wanted.
Click to expand...

We will see.

Now text messages suggesting BK knew about the Ramirez piece in the New Yorker before it came out, contradicting his under oath testimony.

Looks like this nomination was a huge gift to the Dems from Trump.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top