There is only one piece and that is their word. You know this. NOw we are back to the concept of mere allegation is enough to force guilt on a person.
Legal/scotus thread
- Thread starter cajunrevenge
- Start date
There is only one piece and that is their word. You know this. NOw we are back to the concept of mere allegation is enough to force guilt on a person.
57Brave
Well-known member
At this point the issue is lying under oath.
Numerous times. And not just about Prof Ford or Ms Rameriz
And if someone could explain the debts that disappeared and the circumstances under which Justice Kennedy retired
that would go a long way
Remind where in the Mueller report it said " no collusion"
because the record tells a different story
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._Harrold_Carswell
Numerous times. And not just about Prof Ford or Ms Rameriz
And if someone could explain the debts that disappeared and the circumstances under which Justice Kennedy retired
that would go a long way
Remind where in the Mueller report it said " no collusion"
because the record tells a different story
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._Harrold_Carswell
Last edited:
57Brave
Well-known member
no one is forcing guilt. the accusations sssss deserve to be heard.
Realizing you are not one fanmiliar with gender inequality it might be wise when discussing BK to read up on how rape accusations /sexual harrasssment is treated
where the accuser is more often than not put on trial and the accused smirks his/her way off stage.
Why anyone would come forward is a) beyond me and b) deserving of praises for bravery
sturg33
I
Cool. Glad Obama being a coke head should have disqualified him from Presidency.
I love that the left is now assessing teenage actions for lifetime behavior
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
Actually, a reasonable case can be made for excusing gross behavior as teens. We've all been there. But lying under oath as a nominee for the Supreme Court? I don't think so.
sturg33
I
If you have any proof of his lying you should probably alert the press
striker42
Well-known member
Don't get your hopes up about congress being able to rotate SCOTUS justices off. The analysis there is wrong. The Constitution says that judges of the SCOTUS and inferior federal courts shall "hold their offices during good behavior." A seat on the SCOTUS is an office. To move a SCOTUS judge to a lower court would be removing that judge from that office.
As for the Constitution not setting a term, that's important. It shows no definite term was intended. The only limitations set by the Constitution are "good behavior" and the impeachment power of civil officers given to Congress. All this together indicates lifetime appointments with impeachment for "bad behavior".
There's also the fact that in over 200 years of our country's existence, the overwhelming understanding is that federal judges are appointed for life and cannot be removed except by impeachment. The whole point of the federal judiciary is to have a branch of government more distant from the whims of the masses and so able to take a longer view of things.
If Congress set term limits, they would likely be struck down. If they were able to set them, there would be no way they'd be allowed to apply them retroactively.
Finally, it's the courts themselves that would be determining the constitutionality of any law attempting to change court tenure. The Courts are not going to cede power like that.
Federal judges are for life. Might as well come to terms with that and stop living in a pipe dream.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
no need to...there is plenty out there on that...I cited as examples his testimony under oath that devils triangle is a drinking game and that boofing refers to farting
sturg33
I
Your proof is how kids 40 years ago applied innuendo terms? And of course, that teenagers wouldnt lie to their friends to sound cool?
That's great proof. I cant imagine why he hasn't been impeached yet.
YMMV
sturg33
I
I noticed nobody ever commented when Ford's lawyer said that Ford was politically motivated to come forward.
As a guy who hated the BK pick for his constitutional record, I thought it was absolutely critical he get confirmed as not doing so would start a precedent like no other.
Thankfully, less emotional heads prevailed
As a guy who hated the BK pick for his constitutional record, I thought it was absolutely critical he get confirmed as not doing so would start a precedent like no other.
Thankfully, less emotional heads prevailed
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
no need to exaggerate...it wasn't 40 years ago...and we both know he lied under oath...he was embarrassed...in which case he should have withdrawn his nomination rather than lie
57Brave
Well-known member
the precedent was set as soon as the concept of power was realized.
Less emotional heads ? who, Grassley
striker42
Well-known member
My analysis wasn't related to BK stuff.
There are plenty of proposals for term limits and plenty of people who would support term limits for federal judges. The problem is it would likely take a constitutional amendment to make it happen. The lifetime appointment of federal judges is pretty much a settled issue and this point, constitutionally speaking.
I think there are other reforms I'd make the court before term limits to be honest.
50PoundHead
Hessmania Forever
Given that community standards dictate the definition of pornography, anything Kavanaugh would have said to Congress regarding his proclivities (provided he has any) would not have been judged pornographic.
Seriously, McConnell warned Trump that Kavanaugh may have some issues that would lead to a rockier road to confirmation than some of the other judges on the short list and more of that may be coming out. But he's there and I wouldn't waste a ton of effort trying to remove him if I were the Dems. Heck, Scalia went on hunting trips with Dick Cheney and that, to me, raises more red flags than Kavanaugh's behavior as an adolescent. I'm not minimizing the damage those actions may have caused, but continually dredging up stuff from people's youth really doesn't serve the country well in the long run. I admit the lying under oath is a different kettle of fish and I thought Kavanaugh's performance during the hearings on his confirmation was pretty deplorable (and that's not to say that some of the committee members were any better), but he's not going anywhere.
Last edited:
57Brave
Well-known member
I dont get "continually dredging things up" --- this is a book published by 2 independent investigative reporters. Who picked up the ball the Senate Judiciary dropped.
The woman Molly quoted above put out a book praising the selection of BK. Is that too "dredging" ?
My money says the Senate flips, he is going somewhere
Accountability anyone
What is more concerning is before the allegations the unveiling of his lying to Congress in 2006
There is a woman in Texas that got 5 years for falsifying forms to get her kid in a better school
The woman Molly quoted above put out a book praising the selection of BK. Is that too "dredging" ?
My money says the Senate flips, he is going somewhere
Accountability anyone
What is more concerning is before the allegations the unveiling of his lying to Congress in 2006
There is a woman in Texas that got 5 years for falsifying forms to get her kid in a better school
sturg33
I
What's the new allegation?
That a woman had a penis put in her hand... oh, and by the way, that woman denies it happening
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
To answer your question, I do think he assaulted Ford, I find the Ramirez accusation and its contemporaneous corroboration credible, and no,I do not think he ran rape rings.
Why? First, because a victim statements are evidence, and any passing familiarity with the dynamic of unreported sexual assaults should be able to understand why something like this may stay buried for years. I found Blasey-Ford a credible witness, and Kavanaugh the opposite. His numerous evasions and lies about his habits were simply not credible, and there’s a good case to be made that he lied his ass off about his tenure in the Bush WH. So, all in all, not a guy whom I’m automatically going to take at his word, considering that we’re not talking about courtroom standards of evidence here.