Legal/scotus thread

[weso1]

Open-minded Americans of all stripes should see that — emotions aside — Ford’s testimony is completely devoid of credibility: so much so, that Mitchell told the Senate this week that Ford’s allegations do not even meet the preponderance of evidence standard. That standard, which governs in civil litigation, asks whether it is more likely than not that an event occurred.

USA TODAY

 

[bravesnumberone]

Yes, the lady who didn't even question the accused. Who didn't even question the alleged witness in the room. GTFO of here with that crap. He's going to be confirmed. Congrats.

 

[bravesnumberone]

New evidence came out today that backs up Kavanaugh's statements about Devil's triangle and the FFFFF thing.

Devil's Triangle isn't a drinking game. Never was, never has been. Go look at the yearbook entries.

I do believe the FFFFF thing for what he says it was.

 

[striker42]

Yes, the lady who didn't even question the accused. Who didn't even question the alleged witness in the room. GTFO of here with that crap. He's going to be confirmed. Congrats.

Um, she's correct. It doesn't reach preponderance of the evidence. If this was a civil suit, the judge would probably grant a directed verdict.

This doesn't mean it didn't happen, just that it can't be proven by a preponderance of the evidence.

 

[bravesnumberone]

Um, she's correct. It doesn't reach preponderance of the evidence. If this was a civil suit, the judge would probably grant a directed verdict.

This doesn't mean it didn't happen, just that it can't be proven by a preponderance of the evidence.

The point is they didn't hear anywhere near what would ordinarily be heard in an actual court setting, civil or criminal. The woman even bitched about it to Ford on live TV. It was self-serving partisan memo.

 

[striker42]

The point is they didn't hear anywhere near what would ordinarily be heard in an actual court setting, civil or criminal. The woman even bitched about it to Ford on live TV. It was self-serving partisan memo.

Of course it was partisan. It was true though. Considering the age and lack of witnesses it's pretty much unproveable. This is one of the reasons we have statutes of limitations.

 

[cajunrevenge]

Kavanaugh shouldnt be confirmed because he said he would not recuse himself rulings about wether a President is above the law while Trump is in office. If thats his legal opinion that is fine. We can not have a defendant select his own jurors. I guarantee you Trump asked for his btotal loyalty and he said yes.

 

[bravesnumberone]

That's really what this ultimately boils down to. Hence why Trump was never going to stay out of the "investigation" and hence why the White House and Senate Republicans keep tripping over their own dicks about it. At some point people have got to wake the **** up.

 

[striker42]

Kavanaugh shouldnt be confirmed because he said he would not recuse himself rulings about wether a President is above the law while Trump is in office. If thats his legal opinion that is fine. We can not have a defendant select his own jurors. I guarantee you Trump asked for his btotal loyalty and he said yes.

Lots of cases come up where a SCOTUS justice should recuse themselves but don't. Kagan should have recused herself from the Obamacare case but didn't. That doesn't disqualify her from service. It's up to the justices.

 

[cajunrevenge]

I dont expect him to recuse himself from case relating to the Trump administration, just the ones relating to indicting/subpoenaing a sitting President and whether state charges can be brought against a person who was pardoned for federal crimes.



We cant really compare this to any other President. No modern President has openly flaunted the law and obstructed justice like Trump has. That combined with Kavanaughs dubious record of partisanship like going after Clinton and then taking the stance that Presidents are above the law when its a Republican President should disqualify him.



I also feel the need that Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsberg are quickly getting on my good side with their dissent in Kisela v Hughes. In that case while talking to a woman outside her home whe her neighbor walkes outside holding a kitchen knife. She was 15 feet away standing still behind a chain link fence and not gesturimg, pointing the knife at anyone, making any threats, or acting erratically. Lower courts did not grant the police pfficer qualified immunity. There were several officers there amd he was the only one who fired. The Supreme Court said there was no precedent for the officer to know he coulsnt shoot her.......

 

[Tapate50]

It appears he will make it, unfortunately. I think qualified but so are dozens of candidates. He’s not near the pick I would be “in favor of”. I don’t have much confidence in his partisanship after this whole ordeal. I also think he had alcohol issues although I don’t have issue with it like this circus wanted us to ( I won’t hold behavior that 99% of the population at that age participated in against anyone). What I do find uncomfortable is his relationship with women during that time and his bending of the truth about his drinking under oath. I feel like the GOP felt it HAD to double down because of how loose the evidence was against Kav. I hate it because they could have used it for a pivot to a better candidate .

I think it’s fairly gross what lengths both sides have gone to in this matter.

I have NO doubt that memo was leaked on purpose most likely from Feinstein’s office creating this mess. It should have been vetted in July. Period. While not 100% certain he assaulted her, it shouldn’t have played out in front of the American Public and on TV. I hate that for all involved. Keeping this private in july could have allowed the GOP to pivot to another candidate without the fanfare. I hope we learn from it but I think the way it played out there’s no tactic off the table anymore. I think you see a lot more accusations for prominent appointees come forward that may not have validity as a tactic thus weakening the women that do come forward about misconduct.

 

[57Brave]

I think it’s fairly gross what lengths both sides have gone to in this matter.

You are either for Kavanaugh or against Kavanaugh.
Condemning at every turn the tactics of the opposition clearly puts you in the pro BK camp.
Despite your protestations

Let me ask you to play devils advocate , had you been Minority Leader Schumer what would have been your approach?
Can you clarify why it wouldn't have been just lay down and say "oh well, nothing we can do"

The most despicable aspect of 21st century politics is the pre programmed notion that both sides are to blame.


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

 

[bravesnumberone]

This revisionism that people are concerned about him drinking a lot of alcohol as a standalone issue is ridiculous. It's all in the context of what he's accused of.

 

[57Brave]

It isnt the drinking it is the lying

Standard story

It has been about lying since day one

 

[50PoundHead]

It appears he will make it, unfortunately. I think qualified but so are dozens of candidates. He’s not near the pick I would be “in favor of”. I don’t have much confidence in his partisanship after this whole ordeal. I also think he had alcohol issues although I don’t have issue with it like this circus wanted us to ( I won’t hold behavior that 99% of the population at that age participated in against anyone). What I do find uncomfortable is his relationship with women during that time and his bending of the truth about his drinking under oath. I feel like the GOP felt it HAD to double down because of how loose the evidence was against Kav. I hate it because they could have used it for a pivot to a better candidate .

I think it’s fairly gross what lengths both sides have gone to in this matter.

I have NO doubt that memo was leaked on purpose most likely from Feinstein’s office creating this mess. It should have been vetted in July. Period. While not 100% certain he assaulted her, it shouldn’t have played out in front of the American Public and on TV. I hate that for all involved. Keeping this private in july could have allowed the GOP to pivot to another candidate without the fanfare. I hope we learn from it but I think the way it played out there’s no tactic off the table anymore. I think you see a lot more accusations for prominent appointees come forward that may not have validity as a tactic thus weakening the women that do come forward about misconduct.

Amen to that. In some sense this dates back to McConnell's decision not to even grant Garland a hearing. I think the Dems, while opposing Gorsuch, did it a more civilized way. He was replacing Scalia and we probably ended up with Scalia on steroids, but that's the way it goes. Kennedy became noted as "the swing vote" and so the Dems believed the stakes were higher here and threw some hook shots from half court to gum things up.

And that's the problem these days. I've never bought into the notion that the court is above politics. That started with John Adams' appointment of John Marshall to the court. No questioning Marshall's brilliance, but he was a Federalist through and through. But the bigger issue is that Congress--for all of its whining (on both sides) about the power of the Executive and the power of the Supreme Court--simply isn't doing its business and is relying on both the President and the Supreme Court to make policy. That makes these nominations both more partisan in their selection and their confirmation.

As the process wore on, I became less impressed with Kavanaugh. No doubt he has a hefty intellect, but unlike Gorsuch who appears to have a very nimble and curious mind, Kavanaugh appears to be very static. I get that his facade of perfection was dented by the charges leveled against him and that drove him around the bend last week, but I'm an alcoholic who spent the decade of my 20s with a blood alcohol level that was above the legal limit 3/4 of the nights in that period (not saying that Kavanaugh is cut from the same cloth), but he could have approached that with a much more measured demeanor. I don't think that says anything about what he might be as a judge, but to me it says a whole lot more about him as a man.

He'll be confirmed. Roe will go the way of the dinosaur and the 1st and 14th amendment will be weaponized against those on the margins. As Colin Quinn used to say "That's my story and I'm sticking to it."

 

[57Brave]

let me ask you too 50, had you been in Schumers shoes how would you have lead this ?

Not a big Schumer fan here - but I thought he / his caucus fought this nomination with any and everything they had or could muster
As a (D) that was refreshing

I dont think Roe is going away. Most people myself included see (saw) Roe as a social issue. Legal minds see it as an economic issue.
Willing to be corrected but my understanding is the original opinion was written as Roe was necessary to alleviate discrimination towards people seeking an abortion with less resources .

I take it that was what BK was referencing when he said Roe was settled law

 

[57Brave]

found this interesting

Nate Silver
‏Verified account @NateSilver538
7m7 minutes ago

Kavanaugh's numbers among the public have been getting worse,
but it's been a fairly slow and steady decline. Unsurprisingly,
partisan and gender gaps have widened recently.
https://53eig.ht/2O9QgoM



As @Nate_Cohn has pointed out, Kavanaugh's numbers are no *worse* than the GOP's
deficit on the generic ballot, or Trump's net approval rating—in fact, they all seem to be
converging. So he's unpopular on an absolute basis, but not necessarily
relative to other midterm issues.

 

[cajunrevenge]

It isnt the drinking it is the lying

Standard story

It has been about lying since day one

Shouldnt we be concerned about his drinking? How do we know he wont drink on the job or get overly drunk the night before? These are the questions that would be raised if it was any other drug. Are we really going to nominate an alcoholic to the supreme court. Maybe he should choose between doing drugs and being a judge.

 

[50PoundHead]

let me ask you too 50, had you been in Schumers shoes how would you have lead this ?

Not a big Schumer fan here - but I thought he / his caucus fought this nomination with any and everything they had or could muster
As a (D) that was refreshing

I dont think Roe is going away. Most people myself included see (saw) Roe as a social issue. Legal minds see it as an economic issue.
Willing to be corrected but my understanding is the original opinion was written as Roe was necessary to alleviate discrimination towards people seeking an abortion with less resources .

I take it that was what BK was referencing when he said Roe was settled law

I don't know what I would have done had I been in Schumer's shoes. I just wish there had been something more readily palpable to use against Kavanaugh. I believe there are legitimate issues with Kavanaugh's personality (which may or may not affect his ability as a judge), but they were clumsily executed. I don't think Feinstein is as guilty as those on the right want to portray her, but I wish a cleaner line of attack could have been formulated. Like you, I was glad that the Dems didn't lay down. The folks over at The Federalist Society have turned this into a machine and they are churning out well-polished wingnuts by the truckload. I imagine Leo and company are disappointed that Kavanaugh lost his composure.

Roe will likely stand, but it will be a hollow shell.

 

[57Brave]

Shouldnt we be concerned about his drinking? How do we know he wont drink on the job or get overly drunk the night before? These are the questions that would be raised if it was any other drug. Are we really going to nominate an alcoholic to the supreme court. Maybe he should choose between doing drugs and being a judge.

Alcoholism doesn't go away. Many alcoholics are able to cease lying