Legal/scotus thread

striker42 said:
This nonsense, whether valid or not, is what you get when ideology becomes the primary motivation in the selection of judges and when judges allow themselves to be so ideologically motivated that they become a super Congress.

This is not and has never been a righteous crusade against putting a sex criminal on the Supreme Court. Nor has it been a noble attempt to protect an innocent man. This is a political power play. The left doesn't care if any of these allegations are true. They could know for a fact they were false and they'd still be jumping on them in an attempt to gain a political edge. The right doesn't care if they're true or not either. They could know for a fact every allegation was the gospel truth and they'd still write them off in an attempt to gain a political edge of their own.

So no one should fool themselves into thinking they're getting the truth in this.
Click to expand...

Don't you think though that unsubstantiated claims of rape is going a bit too far? Especially when there are those who were happy to go on the record saying that this didn't happen who were in the same circles at the time?
 
thethe said:
Don't you think though that unsubstantiated claims of rape is going a bit too far? Especially when there are those who were happy to go on the record saying that this didn't happen who were in the same circles at the time?
Click to expand...

I don't really have strong feelings on that question as it's about what I expect from politics at this point. My main point is that people need be more skeptical of everything they're told in this story. Everyone has an agenda and the truth is not something anyone cares about at this point.
 
striker42 said:
I don't really have strong feelings on that question as it's about what I expect from politics at this point. My main point is that people need be more skeptical of everything they're told in this story. Everyone has an agenda and the truth is not something anyone cares about at this point.
Click to expand...

Don't disagree with this aspect but it seems to be getting real dirty lately and a lot of it is coming from one side.
 
From my vantage point, it is pretty clear that as a young man (in HS and at Yale) Kavanaugh engaged in at a minimum gross behavior toward women usually while blitheringly drunk.

The coverup is always worse than the crime. When these allegations came out he proceeded to deny all under other oath. This led to some rather farfetched claims. For example that the devils triangle was a drinking game and that boofing referred to farting. All under oath.
 
Last edited:
thethe said:
Don't you think though that unsubstantiated claims of rape is going a bit too far? Especially when there are those who were happy to go on the record saying that this didn't happen who were in the same circles at the time?
Click to expand...

Should be some mandatory prison sentences for people who knowingly, willingly and intentionally make false rape claims or other types of serious accusations.
 
nsacpi said:
From my vantage point, it is pretty clear that as a young man (in HS and at Yale) Kavanaugh engaged in at a minimum gross behavior toward women usually while blitheringly drunk.

The coverup is always worse than the crime. When these allegations came out he proceeded to deny all under other. This led to some rather farfetched claims. For example that the devils triangle was a drinking game and that boofing referred to farting.
Click to expand...

At a minimum? What are you implying? You think it was worse?
 
Krgrecw said:
Should be some mandatory prison sentences for people who knowingly, willingly and intentionally make false rape claims or other types of serious accusations.
Click to expand...

Not sure I would go as far as prison sentences but large civil penalties seem like fair game.
 
thethe said:
At a minimum? What are you implying? You think it was worse?
Click to expand...

by at a minimum I mean that at it minimum it can be described as gross behavior

but it could be described as something worse...attempted assault in the case of Dr. Ford.
 
nsacpi said:
by at a minimum I mean that at it minimum it can be described as gross behavior

but it could be described as something worse...attempted assault in the case of Dr. Ford.
Click to expand...

Attempted assault based on the weak account of one person who couldn't remember basic details while multiple conflicting reports against that same account?
 
Also, the fact that we are somehow re-litigating this is an embarrassment since there is no actual new evidence. Why is this even a story now? Could it be possible that the Dems are concerned about their internal polling and wished to re-surface an issue they feel will strengthen the enthusiasm of their base?
 
"It just didn't make any sense,’ lifelong friend Leland Keyser told NYT reporters about Ford's allegations, adding ‘I don't have any confidence in the story.’”

You would think this account would hold some significance right? RIGHT?
 
sturg33 said:
As I said, I partied like crazy in college... would stumble home, fall out of bed, slur words etc.

And I never blacked out.

What you just showed is not proof. Its circumstantial.

And let's also keep in mind that it's a complete joke that he was having to answer questions about this
Click to expand...

There is no way a person with this kind of potential baggage should even be considered for the Supreme Court. Whether he's a liar or used to be a party animal who treated girls like sex props with his frat buddies aside, this is not the kind of person who should be on the highest court in the land. Were there really no better candidates than this guy?
 
Runnin said:
There is no way a person with this kind of potential baggage should even be considered for the Supreme Court. Whether he's a liar or used to be a party animal who treated girls like sex props with his frat buddies aside, this is not the kind of person who should be on the highest court in the land. Were there really no better candidates than this guy?
Click to expand...

True. I actually like Kavanaugh's jurisprudence. If you go back to the thread where his appointment was discussed, I was more enthusiastic than anyone else about the selection. But it seems to me there are dozens of other good candidates out there who do not have that kind of baggage.
 
Runnin said:
There is no way a person with this kind of potential baggage should even be considered for the Supreme Court. Whether he's a liar or used to be a party animal who treated girls like sex props with his frat buddies aside, this is not the kind of person who should be on the highest court in the land. Were there really no better candidates than this guy?
Click to expand...

So now 'potential baggage' is a disqualifier (how is this not a recognized word on this site)? All based on unsubstantiated arguments which have been refuted by other accounts close to the alleged victim?

Really?
 
You have in the Trump Era yet to accept any attempt of substantiation.
I think the phrase you use is "fake news"
Or as a child would scream" la la la la la la la..."

Corroborator after corroborator has said they were never contacted by FBI or Senate Judiciary
You can look that up
 
Last edited:
"Potential baggage."
Hmmm.

Vetting is the word you were looking for
Due diligence might've been another

There are also questions suurounding the vacancy and monies unaccounted for
 
Jane Mayer
@JaneMayerNYer
·
2h
The @Newyorker
can confirm this: Sen. Chris Coons personally alerted FBI Dir. Chris Wray

of an additional eyewitness alleging Kavanaugh exposed himself to a

2nd woman at Yale- but the FBI never interviewed the witness,

Max Stier, or investigated it.
 
This is the first time I have heard of this logic :

Howard Dean
@GovHowardDean
·
23h
Actually the Supreme Court is NOT for life. The Constitution says the federal bench is for life.

Which means Supreme Court Justices can be rotated off onto district courts.

Since two of them were put on illegitimately, that is important to know.
.....................

putting Kavanaugh and his issues aside, this is interesting

Carp
@NVliberal
·
22h
Replying to
@GovHowardDean
and
@AndyRichter

Article 3 does not set a term of service. The only limitation is that judges hold office

during “good behavior.” It does not specifically state they hold office for life,

nor does it state anything about moving a Supreme Court Justice to an inferior tribunal.

doug
@dougRESISTance
·
19h
��
��
Correct, Congress has just never finished its job of setting term limits.

We need to Amend the Judiciary Act- set terms, and retro them!!
 
57Brave said:
You have in the Trump Era yet to accept any attempt of substantiation.
I think the phrase you use is "fake news"
Or as a child would scream" la la la la la la la..."

Corroborator after corroborator has said they were never contacted by FBI or Senate Judiciary
You can look that up
Click to expand...

What evidence could they hace brought to the table for the Ramirez case?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top