Kavanaugh SCOTUS hearings

[Dill]

(09-16-2019, 03:10 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Because the relevance of someone placed in one of the highest positions in our government acting in such a way and potentially perjuring himself ends when the confirmation hearing is complete. People should not be held accountable for their actions after they are in a position of power [as long as I agree with them].

(09-16-2019, 03:14 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If only Kavs was convicted of a crime. Everybody crying impeachment knows it is not going to happen. Dude's had his day in court. How would you feel if the GOP said we should remove RGB because she is no longer fit? 

SCOTUS, love it or hate it. It is what it is. 

LOL  Bels made you own it.

[*bfine32*]

(09-16-2019, 03:10 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Because the relevance of someone placed in one of the highest positions in our government acting in such a way and potentially perjuring himself ends when the confirmation hearing is complete. People should not be held accountable for their actions after they are in a position of power [as long as I agree with them].

(09-16-2019, 03:23 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: 1. Not sure why you would think that.


2. Not sure what that has to do with anything.


3. People are crying impeachment? I'm honestly not paying attention to the details, just mocking the whole idea that accountability for improper behavior only matters before confirmation.


4.And if new evidence were to come to light that showed he lied and/or that allegations can be confirmed, then he can have another one.


5. I would feel like it would be arbitrary an capricious without appropriate evidence. If there was something that came to light that showed she was incapable of sitting on the bench physically or mentally, then I would be okay with it. But since this is an apples and oranges comparison it doesn't much matter.


6. I have no problem with it and the way our system should work. I just have a problem with blind partisans that like to claim they aren't.

1. Perhaps the line I bolded in you original quote. *Dill had no problem identifying it.

2. Because that's grounds for impeachment

3. Hell ever DEM 2020 candidate except Biden and Amy seems to be crying for it

4. He's already been accused and confirmed. Maybe it's that double jeopardy thing. In before correction: I know not the same, but the principle remains

5. You really don't think there's anything to question RGB's physical ability to sit the bench and to suggest so would be "random"?  But I agree anyone that would call for such a measure would be doing so without the interest of the American people in mind. No matter how much they would suggest that's the reason.

6. I just have a problem with judging the judges. Not sure about the blind partisan remark. But I assume it wasn't another jab. 

[*bfine32*]

(09-16-2019, 03:24 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL  Bels made you own it.

Yes he did make it personal, but I'm not sure what I now own. 

[GMDino]

(09-16-2019, 02:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The NYT is not done investigating yet:
https://time.com/5677929/new-york-times-brett-kavanaugh-sexual-misconduct/


If you ever want to see a sore loser, just beat a Liberal.

Ever want to see a guy who likes to drink a lot of beer and whip his weiner out at girls just look at Kavanaugh.

[Belsnickel]

(09-16-2019, 03:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 1. Perhaps the line I bolded in you original quote. *Dill had no problem identifying it.

Just pointing out the common attitude among people.

(09-16-2019, 03:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 2. Because that's grounds for impeachment

Many things are grounds for impeachments. Criminal conviction is one, but not the only thing.

(09-16-2019, 03:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 3. Hell ever DEM 2020 candidate except Biden and Amy seems to be crying for it

I have been ignoring the race thus far.

(09-16-2019, 03:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 4. He's already been accused and confirmed. Maybe it's that double jeopardy thing. In before correction: I know not the same, but the principle remains

Yeah, not even close, and the principle isn't even the same.

(09-16-2019, 03:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 5. You really don't think there's anything to question RGB's physical ability to sit the bench and to suggest so would be "random"?  But I agree anyone that would call for such a measure would be doing so without the interest of the American people in mind. No matter how much they would suggest that's the reason.

I think that there is not objective evidence to the level to call for her removal at this time.

(09-16-2019, 03:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 6. I just have a problem with judging the judges. Not sure about the blind partisan remark. But I assume it wasn't another jab. 

So we aren't allowed to hold the justices accountable for their actions? Officials should not be responsible for what they do or say? That is an interesting view you hold, there.

[*bfine32*]

(09-16-2019, 03:53 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: 1. Just pointing out the common attitude among people.


2. Many things are grounds for impeachments. Criminal conviction is one, but not the only thing.


3. I have been ignoring the race thus far.


4. Yeah, not even close, and the principle isn't even the same.


5. I think that there is not objective evidence to the level to call for her removal at this time.


6. So we aren't allowed to hold the justices accountable for their actions? Officials should not be responsible for what they do or say? That is an interesting view you hold, there.

1. All we can do is take you at your word and that you were "just saying". Seemed sorta like pointing a finger (At least it did to Dill)

2. Yeah, like High Crimes

3. You'd have to be ignoring more than the race not to get the Candidate's thoughts on this. 

4. If you say so. The woman's claims were made to the FBI during the initial confirmation. But now the NYT has witnesses; including her mom (FWIW they had witnesses in the confirmation) it's "new". 

5. Of course her physical health is objective and relevant. But I agrre. I'm not calling for impeachment, just wondering if you would feel the same is it were another SJ

6. Of course they should be held accountable. Hell he was held so accountable that he had to testify before Congress in an ugly confirmation. The dude has been tried and he was confirmed. 

The one in the whole matter that really cracks me up it Kamala Harris. She said "worse" was Kavs lied to the American People. She just laughed and said "well said" to someone that used a slur for those with mental challenges and then she told the American People "I didn't hear it". 

[Belsnickel]

(09-16-2019, 04:04 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 1. All we can do is take you at your word and that you were "just saying". Seemed sorta like pointing a finger (At least it did to Dill)

People are free to interpret my statements how they like.

(09-16-2019, 04:04 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 2. Yeah, like High Crimes

You might want to look up what the term "high crimes and misdemeanors" actually means. I posted a well researched article on the topic a while ago, but the Wikipedia entry will suffice. Tl;dr: a "high crime" doesn't need to be a crime at all.

(09-16-2019, 04:04 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 3. You'd have to be ignoring more than the race not to get the Candidate's thoughts on this. 

Yeah, I am. I pretty much focus on state and local government and policy issues related to conservation. I'm tired of the bullshit.

(09-16-2019, 04:04 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 4. If you say so. The woman's claims were made to the FBI during the initial confirmation. But now the NYT has witnesses; including her mom (FWIW they had witnesses in the confirmation) it's "new". 

Except if it is discovered he perjured himself then that is something new. Even if there is a new accusation from the same woman, it's new. Neither would fall under double jeopardy even if it applied.

(09-16-2019, 04:04 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 5. Of course her physical health is objective and relevant. But I agrre. I'm not calling for impeachment, just wondering if you would feel the same is it were another SJ

If a medical evaluation called her ability to serve into question, then that is evidence enough to me. Opinions from people viewing it from afar mean little.

(09-16-2019, 04:04 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 6. Of course they should be held accountable. Hell he was held so accountable that he had to testify before Congress in an ugly confirmation. The dude has been tried and he was confirmed. 

If something else comes up after then should he not, then, be held accountable?

(09-16-2019, 04:04 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The one in the whole matter that really cracks me up it Kamala Harris. She said "worse" was Kavs lied to the American People. She just laughed and said "well said" to someone that used a slur for those with mental challenges and then she told the American People "I didn't hear it". 

I heard something about all this, but don't know much about it.

[*michaelsean*]

(09-16-2019, 04:33 PM)Belsnickel Wrote:  


You might want to look up what the term "high crimes and misdemeanors" actually means. I posted a well researched article on the topic a while ago, but the Wikipedia entry will suffice. Tl;dr: a "high crime" doesn't need to be a crime at all.


 

I don't know.  I remember a lot of liberals speaking quite authoritatively on what constitutes high crimes during the Clinton era.  That "perjury of oath" that shows up there right in the beginning of the wiki article must be from a post 90s amendment.

[Belsnickel]

(09-16-2019, 04:39 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I don't know.  I remember a lot of liberals speaking quite authoritatively on what constitutes high crimes during the Clinton era.  That "perjury of oath" that shows up there right in the beginning of the wiki article must be from a post 90s amendment.

I can't speak to what liberals were saying at the time as I wasn't politically involved. My first election was 2004, after all. I just know what I have read on the subject of the phrase.

[*bfine32*]

(09-16-2019, 04:33 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: People are free to interpret my statements how they like.


You might want to look up what the term "high crimes and misdemeanors" actually means. I posted a well researched article on the topic a while ago, but the Wikipedia entry will suffice. Tl;dr: a "high crime" doesn't need to be a crime at all.


Yeah, I am. I pretty much focus on state and local government and policy issues related to conservation. I'm tired of the bullshit.


Except if it is discovered he perjured himself then that is something new. Even if there is a new accusation from the same woman, it's new. Neither would fall under double jeopardy even if it applied.


If a medical evaluation called her ability to serve into question, then that is evidence enough to me. Opinions from people viewing it from afar mean little.


If something else comes up after then should he not, then, be held accountable?


I heard something about all this, but don't know much about it.

Fair enough and like I said all a man has is his word. Just like Kavs.

We'll just disagree with the double jeopardy "principle". Same person accuses you of the same thing... Hell there's not even any indicators of new evidence. Just those that already saying it now going with "I really mean it". 

The point being...nothing else has come up. 

[*michaelsean*]

(09-16-2019, 04:43 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I can't speak to what liberals were saying at the time as I wasn't politically involved. My first election was 2004, after all. I just know what I have read on the subject of the phrase.

Well suffice it to say that if you weren't standing over a minimum three bodies with the gun actually still smoking, then it did not "rise to the level" ( a favorite phrase of theirs) of high crimes and misdemeanors.  

[Belsnickel]

(09-16-2019, 04:55 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Well suffice it to say that if you weren't standing over a minimum three bodies with the gun actually still smoking, then it did not "rise to the level" ( a favorite phrase of theirs) of high crimes and misdemeanors.  

Which is stupid. The whole idea of impeachment is having a process separate from the judicial system that holds officials to a higher standard. Since it isn't about violating liberties, it has a lower threshold.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

It appears the NYT has "corrected" its story to include the rather minor detail that the supposed victim of this new revelation has zero memory of it.

Seriously, it's like the NYT is actively trying to help Trump discredit the free press.

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/461594-latest-brett-kavanaugh-media-report-is-pure-partisan-malice

In what may be the most egregious reporting blunder of the Kavanaugh saga, the New York Times issued a correction: “An earlier version of this article, which was adapted from a forthcoming book, did not include one element of the book’s account regarding an assertion by a Yale classmate that friends of Brett Kavanaugh pushed his penis into the hand of a female student at a drunken dorm party. The book reports that the female student declined to be interviewed and friends say that she does not recall the incident. That information has been added to the article.”


Oops.

[Dill]

(09-16-2019, 03:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yes he did make it personal, but I'm not sure what I now own. 

This:

People should not be held accountable for their actions after they are in a position of power [as long as I agree with them].

[*bfine32*]

(09-16-2019, 05:23 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It appears the NYT has "corrected" its story to include the rather minor detail that the supposed victim of this new revelation has zero memory of it.

Seriously, it's like the NYT is actively trying to help Trump discredit the free press.

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/461594-latest-brett-kavanaugh-media-report-is-pure-partisan-malice

In what may be the most egregious reporting blunder of the Kavanaugh saga, the New York Times issued a correction: “An earlier version of this article, which was adapted from a forthcoming book, did not include one element of the book’s account regarding an assertion by a Yale classmate that friends of Brett Kavanaugh pushed his penis into the hand of a female student at a drunken dorm party. The book reports that the female student declined to be interviewed and friends say that she does not recall the incident. That information has been added to the article.”


Oops.

I wonder is Harris, Beto, Castro, Warren, and others will withdraw their calls for impeachment with this news. 

[*bfine32*]

(09-16-2019, 05:57 PM)Dill Wrote: This:

People should not be held accountable for their actions after they are in a position of power [as long as I agree with them].

But he states he was "just saying", not pointing a finger at anyone. So......

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-16-2019, 06:01 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I wonder is Harris, Beto, Castro, Warren, and others will withdraw their calls for impeachment with this news. 

What's really egregious about this glaring omission is that the entire story came from a book written by two NYT journalists and this information is in the book.  It's so utterly incompetent you almost hope it was intentional.

[Dill]

(09-16-2019, 06:02 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But he states he was "just saying", not pointing a finger at anyone. So......

So you didn't need to own it, but did anyway.

[6andcounting]

Before I can even start to follow the story it's already retracted. The New York Times published an exert written by their own reporter and couldn't vet the information so they left out what went against their narrative. 

[*bfine32*]

(09-16-2019, 07:38 PM)6andcounting Wrote: Before I can even start to follow the story it's already retracted. The New York Times published an exert written by their own reporter and couldn't vet the information so they left out what went against their narrative.

Hell many of the Dem 2020 candidates didn't have enough time to follow up on their impeachment demand. But they expect you to believe they are pragmatic.