Kavanaugh SCOTUS hearings

[Belsnickel]

(10-04-2018, 11:39 AM)bfine32 Wrote: It was on TV; didn't you see it? Unfortunately, the Dems were more interested in treating her like Neil Armstrong on his return from the moon than there were allowing a professional prosecutor to obtain any facts.  

You mean the Dems that wanted the investigation from the FBI before the hearing? Those Dems that weren't interested in letting professionals obtain facts?

That hearing was nothing but grandstanding all around, as most hearings are.

[GMDino]

As an aside to this circus the GOP is teeing up for us this week:


What kind of qualifications should one have to sit on the SC?

I didn't really realize that Kavanaugh as "legal" and government experience but only  12 years as a judge.  (Appoint by another frat boy, btw.)

Even then he was accused of being too partisan and the ABA downgraded him to "qualified" after reviewing his work.

Is there ANY kind of standard or is just a legal background required?  I haven't even started to look at current members let alone all the past ones. to see if there is a trend or an exception.

[Belsnickel]

(10-04-2018, 12:14 PM)GMDino Wrote: As an aside to this circus the GOP is teeing up for us this week:


What kind of qualifications should one have to sit on the SC?

I didn't really realize that Kavanaugh as "legal" and government experience but only  12 years as a judge.  (Appoint by another frat boy, btw.)

Even then he was accused of being too partisan and the ABA downgraded him to "qualified" after reviewing his work.

Is there ANY kind of standard or is just a legal background required?  I haven't even started to look at current members let alone all the past ones. to see if there is a trend or an exception.

Technically, there is no requirement. The POTUS has the authority to nominate whomever. For instance, the one nominee of Trump's that never even argued a case and had no experience on any bench.

[GMDino]

(10-04-2018, 12:18 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Technically, there is no requirement. The POTUS has the authority to nominate whomever. For instance, the one nominee of Trump's that never even argued a case and had no experience on any bench.

You'd have thought that the brilliant minds that created the Supreme Court would have have been a little more specific.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-04-2018, 12:14 PM)GMDino Wrote: Even then he was accused of being too partisan and the ABA downgraded him to "qualified" after reviewing his work.

In 2006.  He was recently top rated as a SCOTUS nominee.  This type of willful deception does not do your arguments any favors.

[BmorePat87]

(10-04-2018, 11:39 AM)bfine32 Wrote: It was on TV; didn't you see it? Unfortunately, the Dems were more interested in treating her like Neil Armstrong on his return from the moon than there were allowing a professional prosecutor to obtain any facts.  

The FBI interviewed her on TV?

[*bfine32*]

(10-04-2018, 11:56 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: You mean the Dems that wanted the investigation from the FBI before the hearing? Those Dems that weren't interested in letting professionals obtain facts?

That hearing was nothing but grandstanding all around, as most hearings are.

I get it. Folks have condemned this man without due process and now when they are seeing their condemnation was unfounded they have to try to find something to sooth their cognitive dissonance. They can point to the process to try and excuse their own hatred.

Of course I'm all talking about those to which it pertains.  

[*bfine32*]

(10-04-2018, 12:25 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The FBI interviewed her on TV?

Well you did say they, but to answer your question. No the FBI would have done it confidentially. But her telling them she doesn't remember anything directly instead of them just taking sworn testimony would have made all the difference.

Or that's one of the last cards the left has in the despicable smear campaign.  

[jj22]

(10-04-2018, 11:39 AM)bfine32 Wrote: It was on TV; didn't you see it? Unfortunately, the Dems were more interested in treating her like Neil Armstrong on his return from the moon than there were allowing a professional prosecutor to obtain any facts.  

You mean that professional prosecutor who put her through 4 hours of questions but only asked Kav 2 questions? Funny how you guys aren't concerned about her getting his facts.... These are the things that hurts Trump supporters arguments as it was witnessed by a record breaking audience.

[Belsnickel]

(10-04-2018, 12:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: In 2006.  He was recently top rated as a SCOTUS nominee.  This type of willful deception does not do your arguments any favors.

It's definitely an interesting situation with this, because what has changed between when they downgraded him to now? I know you don't know the answers, this is just something I have been pondering. It's also interesting to me because his behavior at the hearing was a violation of what the ABA has out there as like a code of conduct for judges in general. I think the ABA is trying hard not to end up being the center of attention in the fight by not saying anything more than it has.

[jj22]

(10-04-2018, 12:27 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I get it. Folks have condemned this man without due process and now when they are seeing their condemnation was unfounded they have to try to find something to sooth their cognitive dissonance. They can point to the process to try and excuse their own hatred.

Of course I'm all talking about those to which it pertains.  

Only info that is being found untrue is much of Kav's story and key parts of his testimony. You know the guy who never "drank, had sex, or partied" in high school. Only was focused on service, sports, and academics (that damned high school calendar!)..... A quick google search will provide receipts about his lies being exposed,. Everyone, even Republicans and Trump says Ford is credible. What specifically are you saying was found to be unfounded?

[Belsnickel]

(10-04-2018, 12:27 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I get it. Folks have condemned this man without due process and now when they are seeing their condemnation was unfounded they have to try to find something to sooth their cognitive dissonance. They can point to the process to try and excuse their own hatred.

Of course I'm all talking about those to which it pertains.  

Of course, since I haven't ever once said he was guilty of the allegations of sexual misconduct against him I know your statements do not apply to me.

[GMDino]

(10-04-2018, 12:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: In 2006.  He was recently top rated as a SCOTUS nominee.  This type of willful deception does not do your arguments any favors.

I was pretty clear it was when he was first nominated as I said "Even then..." (as I was referring to people suggesting he was biased) AND they downgraded even after several interviews.

But to your point the ABA wanted the FBI investigation (now, not then) also:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/27/politics/kavanaugh-american-bar-association/index.html

After his display at the hearing.

[*bfine32*]

(10-04-2018, 12:35 PM)jj22 Wrote: Only info that is being found untrue is Kav's testimony. Everyone, even Republicans and Trump says Ford is credible. What specifically are you saying was found to be unfounded?

Of course they are going to say that; they have elections to win too. But Kavanaugh being the assailant has zero substantiation.  Just a bunch of narrow minded folks.

Of course I'm only talking about those. to which, it pertains.

[*bfine32*]

(10-04-2018, 12:35 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Of course, since I haven't ever once said he was guilty of the allegations of sexual misconduct against him I know your statements do not apply to me.

No doubt. You never said you believed her when she said Kavs assaulted her. I was talking about those other guys.

[Belsnickel]

(10-04-2018, 12:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: No doubt. You never said you believed her when she said Kavs assaulted her. I was talking about those other guys.

You know what, I do retract my comment. I recall saying early on that I do believe Ford more than Kavanaugh. I was incorrect in my statement. I've tried to not make those calls as the others have come up, and I had forgotten that I had made that judgement with Ford.

[*michaelsean*]

(10-04-2018, 12:36 PM)GMDino Wrote: I was pretty clear it was when he was first nominated as I said "Even then..." (as I was referring to people suggesting he was biased) AND they downgraded even after several interviews.

But to your point the ABA wanted the FBI investigation (now, not then) also:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/27/politics/kavanaugh-american-bar-association/index.html

After his display at the hearing.

Or maybe just the President pretending to speak for everyone.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/american-bar-association-backs-kavanaugh-despite-previous-letter-to-the-contrary/

[GMDino]

(10-04-2018, 01:13 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Or maybe just the President pretending to speak for everyone.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/american-bar-association-backs-kavanaugh-despite-previous-letter-to-the-contrary/

Good clarification.

Doesn't say they didn't want the investigation though too.

[*michaelsean*]

(10-04-2018, 01:32 PM)GMDino Wrote: Good clarification.

Doesn't say they didn't want the investigation though too.

No I don't think they have made a declaration either way.  

[Millhouse]

I wonder who had more evidence against them to prove guilt, Kavanaugh or the Salem 'witches' in the 1690s?

Now not to sound like a white male sticking up for my own, the rape accusation against Christiano Ronaldo, the worlds richest athlete, is different. Though it happened 9 years ago in Vegas, and the accuser agreed to a settlement to keep quiet, she did go to the police soon after it happened, and was documented medically of being raped, which was sodomy she claimed. Vegas police have now re-opened the case as she wants to come forward publicly, and her allegations have some sort of substantiated evidence to back them up apparently, which may not be good for him. This allegation has actual depth and possible merit to it.

Funny thing is, I am not a fan of Kavanaugh's politics. Don't even want him on the SC for other reasons though I am sticking up for him on this as of now. But I am a fan of Ronaldo and have been for years, but after looking into this allegation with other allegations from Manchester England and in Italy years ago, I am doubting his innocence quite a bit today. Definitely will wait to see what the investigation will find.