Kavanaugh SCOTUS hearings

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-08-2018, 04:29 PM)GMDino Wrote: Two, quick, asides:


Getting the job doesn't necessarily mean someone is qualified.  Lots of people get jobs they are unqualified for for one reason or another (nepotism, necessity of filling position, lying on resume, etc).

Fair enough, going by the lesser used definition of the word.  I have to give you credit for actually using a word as defined though, so kudos.

[Dill]

(10-08-2018, 02:44 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yeah that can all change once we start denying folks the presumption of innocence. 

As to the matter; I'm going to consider it closed. I have the lefties on here view of presumption of innocence and I my view. I might do some case law research to see if one must go to a court of law to be presumed innocent, but maybe not.

You guys go on denying those rights. I wounder how Justice Kavs and the rest of SCOTUS would view the matter. 

And a bigot is someone that treats someone else with intolerance. Of course you don't think that applies to folks that stated Kavs  didn't deserve the presumption of innocence. 

Keeper.

It has been explained to you why presuming guilt outside of a criminal trial does not automatically deny a person basic human rights. Without at all responding to that points made in that explanation, you continue to claim, following some Fox-style talking points, that Kavanaugh's "basic human rights" have somehow been denied--and by people in this forum, no less.  Those people have done this by not "presuming" his innocence regardless of allegations against him and his own inculpatory behavior, instead supporting investigations into allegations against him to better determine whether he is innocent.

And now you are going to muddle this so called denial of rights over into "bigotry" as well.

Studying "case law" is not going to help you if you don't understand the distinction between criminal law and norms of conduct operating outside a courtroom.  The more you study the concept of rule of law, the more "leftist" it will sound to you.

Here's something to think about though. Long before he was found guilty of crimes against the U.S. Paul Manafort was denied bail and considered a flight risk.  If Manafort is "presumed innocent," how can a judge lock him up before he is convicted?  Was the judge violating his basic human rights?? http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-russia-manafort-20171106-story.html.   Yet denial of bail is something done everyday in every state of the union.

In fact, how could we ever bring anyone to trial, if presumption of innocence meant we could not present and investigate allegations?

Or if simply presenting and investigating allegations in itself were is as "denial of human rights" rather than their guarantor.

[Benton]

(10-08-2018, 04:52 PM)Belsnickel Wrote:  This current path is thanks in large part to the Federalist Society and their efforts to politicize the courts, which have been extremely successful.

Outstanding, and probably a little known, point. 

Not that he had to be, but I didn't think Kavanaugh was part of that? Not that his opinions have been too far off from some of the more outspoken ones.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-08-2018, 04:49 PM)fredtoast Wrote: It's even more troubling that the right has a problem with abolishing slavery and giving women the right to vote.

How are both of those issues demonstrably on "the right"?  I'd be interested in how you define "the right" that brought you to this conclusion.  

Quote:What's so "troubling" about improving the Constitution?

If you think abolishing the second amendment and curtailing the first is "improving" the Constitution then I worry for you.  In any event, there is a process in pace to amend the Constitution, please avail yourself of it if possible.

(10-08-2018, 04:55 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Ok, so, trying to amend what is in the Constitution is destroying it, yet what you are talking about are amendments themselves.

No one mentioned amendments.  I mentioned stated intentions.  If you think curtailing the first and eliminating the second will ever pass the amendment process then you're insane.  As I know you are not insane you know that won't happen.  Thus, those advocating for it are advocating for radical, and implausible at best, action.

Quote:Especially the EC, which in itself isn't being used as it was intended when the amendment was written.

In your opinion.  The EC isn't only a mechanism to prevent an unfit person from being elected POTUS.  It is also a mechanism to provide states with lower populations political power they would otherwise lack.  

Quote:I get that the California Democrats have done you wrong, but I'm having a hard time wading through this one.

Hopefully I helped you out above, no sarcasm intended.  You are correct though, the CA machine has done many people wrong, and they are trying their level best to import their brand of politics to other states.

[Belsnickel]

(10-08-2018, 05:08 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: In your opinion.  The EC isn't only a mechanism to prevent an unfit person from being elected POTUS.  It is also a mechanism to provide states with lower populations political power they would otherwise lack.  

Eh, that was the intention behind the the bicameral legislature. The reason for the EC was really about separating out the the legislative and executive branches. We must keep in mind that political power really didn't rest with the POTUS until several decades after the EC was created. Political power with the POTUS wasn't a thing; it all resided in Congress.

Edit to add: I also forgot that another big reason for the EC was slavery. At the time, the states that stood to lose the most with a popular election over the election based on Congressional representation were the slave states. In effect, their greater power as a result of the compromise set forth in that representation allowed them to have greater power for the presidential election, as well.

[fredtoast]

(10-08-2018, 05:08 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: If you think abolishing the second amendment and curtailing the first is "improving" the Constitution then I worry for you. 

I worry for you if you honestly think it should be legal to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater.
Placing limits on rights can be a good thing.  And it happens all the time without amending the Constitution. 

[Belsnickel]

(10-08-2018, 05:07 PM)Benton Wrote: Outstanding, and probably a little known, point. 

Not that he had to be, but I didn't think Kavanaugh was part of that? Not that his opinions have been too far off from some of the more outspoken ones.

Kavanaugh is a member of the Federalist Society, but he wasn't on their list for Trump. They sought to push others instead of him seeing his baggage as a liability (which is also why McConnell didn't want him). His position on executive power, though, made him an appealing choice for Trump.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-08-2018, 05:15 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Eh, that was the intention behind the the bicameral legislature. The reason for the EC was really about separating out the the legislative and executive branches. We must keep in mind that political power really didn't rest with the POTUS until several decades after the EC was created. Political power with the POTUS wasn't a thing; it all resided in Congress.

It was the intention of the Senate, however it did not stop there.  I also think you're underestimating the power of the executive branch as initially defined.  While certainly not as powerful then as now, it was by no means as impotent as you seem to be suggesting.

(10-08-2018, 05:16 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I worry for you if you honestly think it should be legal to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater.
Placing limits on rights can be a good thing.  And it happens all the time without amending the Constitution. 

Sorry, I forgot I was talking to the gold medal winner in parsing hairs.  I should have said, "further" curtailing the first amendment.  

[Belsnickel]

(10-08-2018, 05:31 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It was the intention of the Senate, however it did not stop there.  I also think you're underestimating the power of the executive branch as initially defined.  While certainly not as powerful then as now, it was by no means as impotent as you seem to be suggesting.

At the time? Yeah it was. The real power of the executive really didn't grow until the bureaucracy grew around it. During the founding of our country the president's political power within the country was minute.

[Dill]

(10-08-2018, 02:24 PM)GMDino Wrote: Bfine said: I assumed you understood I meant legally taken away when I referenced a court of law. Anyone can deny anyone a basic human right if they choose to do so. Just like many bigots did with Kavs. Actually there's a difference as far as I am concerned between violating (with is what you said) and taking away(which is what I said). Of course that could just be semantics.

"bigots"  lol

Ha ha, sexual assault victim comes forward with allegations; people who stand for basic human rights presume the man innocent; bigots want her allegations investigated.  

By they way, Dino, just as an experiment for discussion's sake, I am going to deny you your basic human rights  Anyone can and I choose to do so.

Starting now. There, they're gone.  Please inform the human resources dept. where you work. You don't have these rights anymore so no one, including your employer and fellow employees, can violate them.

[Dill]

(10-08-2018, 05:15 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Eh, that was the intention behind the the bicameral legislature. The reason for the EC was really about separating out the the legislative and executive branches. We must keep in mind that political power really didn't rest with the POTUS until several decades after the EC was created. Political power with the POTUS wasn't a thing; it all resided in Congress.

Edit to add: I also forgot that another big reason for the EC was slavery. At the time, the states that stood to lose the most with a popular election over the election based on Congressional representation were the slave states. In effect, their greater power as a result of the compromise set forth in that representation allowed them to have greater power for the presidential election, as well.

(10-08-2018, 05:34 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: At the time? Yeah it was. The real power of the executive really didn't grow until the bureaucracy grew around it. During the founding of our country the president's political power within the country was minute.

Sideline:  I know you know your stuff, Bels, but the bolded above seems questionable, or at least unclear.  It would be true of the Supreme Court, which really had little power until after Marbury vs Madison,  but  I don't think it was true of the Executive branch, since Washington was a pretty strong chief exec.  He fleshed out many of the executive powers in developing treaties--bringing them to Congress AFTER he had worked them out, calling out the militia, insisting on the right to hire and fire his own cabinet, etc. He created the offices of Secretary of State and of the Treasury.  His backing made the national bank happen, etc.

I am not sure what you mean when you say "political power" didn't rest with him, or was "minute."   A veto is not minute and Washington vetoed at least two pieces of legislation.

[*michaelsean*]

(10-08-2018, 04:29 PM)GMDino Wrote: Two, quick, asides:


Getting the job doesn't necessarily mean someone is qualified. Lots of people get jobs they are unqualified for for one reason or another (nepotism, necessity of filling position, lying on resume, etc).




Yay! The hyperbole police showed up! Hope they read all the posts and not just the "left leaning" ones.

Disqualified/unqualified. Not synonyms. By being confirmed he was demonstrably not disqualified. It’s common sense.

[Belsnickel]

(10-08-2018, 06:02 PM)Dill Wrote: Sideline:  I know you know your stuff, Bels, but the bolded above seems questionable, or at least unclear.  It would be true of the Supreme Court, which really had little power until after Marbury vs Madison,  but  I don't think it was true of the Executive branch, since Washington was a pretty strong chief exec.  He fleshed out many of the executive powers in developing treaties--bringing them to Congress AFTER he had worked them out, calling out the militia, insisting on the right to hire and fire his own cabinet, etc. He created the offices of Secretary of State and of the Treasury.  His backing made the national bank happen, etc.

I am not sure what you mean when you say "political power" didn't rest with him, or was "minute."   A veto is not minute and Washington vetoed at least two pieces of legislation.

Political power is about policy making. The power for policy as the Constitution is written for the executive rests in the realm of foreign policy. Domestic, the office is neutered. I will say that using the word "minute" may not be correct, because the veto is power, but it can be overridden. I should have been more specific.

The presidents, starting with Washington, grabbed more and more power from Congress. But per the Constitution the political power for domestic policy rests with Congress.

[ballsofsteel]

The dotard said that Kavnanagh was "proven innocent" by the FBI's five day investigation.

[Dill]

(10-09-2018, 08:44 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Political power is about policy making. The power for policy as the Constitution is written for the executive rests in the realm of foreign policy. Domestic, the office is neutered. I will say that using the word "minute" may not be correct, because the veto is power, but it can be overridden. I should have been more specific.

The presidents, starting with Washington, grabbed more and more power from Congress. But per the Constitution the political power for domestic policy rests with Congress.

Ha, ha, thanks for the response. I can sure tell I am reading a policy wonk.  We don't disagree that Congress was meant to have more power than other branches, nor that it did/does.  I just say that while political power is certainly about policy making, it is not only about that.   Again, I keep thinking of how Washington exercised power. In some cases he "made policy" by establishing precedent. He basically settled what "advise and consent" meant in dealing with the senate.  And the distinction between domestic and foreign policy was only as clear as the frontier when he took office, which was not very clear at all. So he had to organize the defense of the new U.S. in the Northwest Indian Wars, and get Congress to establish a real army, not just militia, and wrested from them the right to call out state militia. And he used that power in putting down the Whiskey Rebellion, which was certainly domestic. He personally led 13,000 men (many forcibly drafted) into Western PA--a Commander-in-chief actually commanding in the field (even if "the enemy" surrendered before they arrived). So the exec wasn't completely "neutered" even in domestic affairs. 

I agree that the presidency was much weaker back then than at present. You are right that the growing exec bureaucracy also grew executive power.  An executive order now can set or reset school policy around the nation by withholding federal funds from districts that don't cooperate. Washington and Jefferson did not have that kind of power.  I just wouldn't say the power of the exec was negligible, even pre-Lincoln.

[GMDino]

https://youtu.be/gGho7Ked-FI

[GMDino]

Just so this doesn't go unnoticed:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2018/10/14/what-we-know-and-dont-know-about-the-kavanaugh-ethics-investigation/#72e60d055e24

Quote:Last week, as the Republican leadership celebrated “a rock-solid Republican majority for a generation,” Chief Justice Roberts spoiled some of the joy by requesting on Wednesday October 10 that the Tenth Circuit investigate more than twelve ethics complaints that had been made against the newly-seated Justice Kavanaugh. 
While die-hard Democrats agonize that this is “just another cover-up,” and ardent Republicans fear that Chief Justice Roberts is “once again stabbing them in the back,” there remains the heroic possibility that the rule of law will prevail and that the Kavanaugh judicial ethics investigation will be conducted on its substance.


There are some things we know and some we don’t.



We know from the October 6 press release of Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson of the District Court of Appeals and from the letter of Chief Justice Roberts of October 10 that the complaints concern Kavanaugh’s statements, not his actions.


We know that the complaints concern Kavanaugh’s recent statementsboth before and during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on September 27. We don’t yet know precisely which statements.

We know that the complaints do not concern Kavanaugh’s actions years ago, i.e. alleged sexual misconduct and excessive drinking as a teenager and college student.


It is almost certain that the complaints include Judge Kavanaugh’s startlingly non-judicial statements and partisan remarks at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on September 27 and the allegedly-untrue statements made in the course of the earlier Senate hearings, for which the Washington Post had awarded a Three-Pinocchio rating, meaning “significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions.”

The Complaints Are Not Made Without Legal Basis
We know that the complaints are not made without legal basis. We know that Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson, whom President George H.W. Bush nominated to the District Circuit Court of Appeals, has already determined that the complaints that she forwarded to Chief Justice Roberts warrant review, as she dismissed other complaints as “lacking evidence.”


We know that Judge Kavanaugh himself admitted in the Wall Street Journal on October 4 that he said “a few things he shouldn’t have said” at the Senate Judicial Committee hearing on September 27. However, Kavanaugh did not specify which things he misspoke. Nor did he apologize or show remorse for, or retract, the things that he said at the hearing. Some of the statements that he made were contained in premeditated, prepared statements and were repeated on a sustained basis over a number of hours of testimony, thus showing a pattern of conduct, not an isolated remark that was made in the heat of a single exchange.


Judge Kavanaugh’s partisan remarks on September 27 were made in the most public fashion possible—on national television at a time when much of the nation was watching. The widespread partisan behavior that inevitably ensued from the remarks is precisely the result that the rules of judicial conduct are intended to avoid. 
The reputational damage that the judiciary suffered as a result of the partisan remarks was, and continues to be, massive.


We know that more than 2,400 law professors have determined that Judge Kavanaugh  “displayed a lack of judicial temperament that would be disqualifying for any court.” We also know that former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens stated that Judge Kavanaugh demonstrated partisan bias and is “not fit for the Supreme Court.”


We thus know that President Trump was incorrect when he stated at Kavanaugh’s swearing in as a Justice of the Supreme Court that Kavanaugh had been “proven innocent.” A 50-48 majority of the Senate merely voted to approve Kavanaugh’s nomination, in the face of ethical issues that were unaddressed. Proceeding with Kavanaugh's confirmation after failing to address those issues further amplified the reputational damage to the judiciary.

Does The Tenth Circuit Have Jurisdiction?
Questions have been raised as to whether the Tenth Circuit has jurisdiction to consider the Kavanaugh ethical questions.


To put this issue in its simplest terms, we know that Kavanaugh’s statements were made between July and September 2018 when he was a judge on the D.C. Court of Appeals. We know that as a Court of Appeal judge, his conduct is subject to the Rules for Judicial Conduct. As Professor Stephen Gillers of New York University has pointed out, Kavanaugh remains a federal judge and “violation of the Code does not disappear because he is now on another federal court.”


Indeed, the Rules for Judicial Conduct explicitly state: “As long as the subject of the complaint performs judicial duties, a complaint alleging judicial misconduct must be addressed.”


What Will The Tenth Circuit Do?
We do not yet know how Timothy M. Tymkovich, the Chief Judge of the Denver-based 10th Circuit will approach the issues. We know that Judge Tymkovich was appointed by the Republican President George W. Bush in 2003 and was on the short list as a possible U.S. Supreme Court nominee by President Trump.


Although Judge Tymkovich has figured in cases arguing or supporting Right-wing positions on issues such as gay rights, religious rights and government rights, there is no evidence to suggest that he condones judicial misconduct or that he will assess the case otherwise than on the substance.


At this point, there is peril for all parties, no matter what the Tenth Circuit does. If the judicial system sweeps things under the rug, there wlll be a political outcry and there will always be an asterisk against the Tenth Circuit, Chief Justice Roberts and the Supreme Court’s decisions.



Possible Outcomes
We do not yet know the outcome of a genuine ethics investigation or whether Kavanaugh’s unpopularity will be relieved or accentuated by it.


It is possible that an assessment on the merits would find no significant judicial misconduct and recommend no disciplinary action. As Professor Gillers has said, the complaints “may be found not to be meritorious in the end.” 
We would expect the review to take into account the stress and pressure that Judge Kavanaugh was under at the time at the time he made the statements in question. But the review would also need to take into account the Judicial Code of Conduct, “A judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny and accept freely and willingly restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen.” Moreover, in evaluating any extenuating circumstances, the review will have to take into account Justice Kavanaugh's failure to take steps to recognize and repair the reputational damage that his statements have generated.


It is thus possible that the review will find significant judicial misconduct, given that the Rules for Judicial Conduct explicitly forbid “making inappropriately partisan statements,” and given the reputational damage that the judiciary continues to suffer as a result of Kavanaugh's partisan remarks on September 27. If the review finds judicial misconduct, the review might recommend a variety of actions ranging from censure, removal from reviewing cases for a period, or impeachment. According to the Judicial Code, the response would depend on “the seriousness of the improper activity, the intent of the judge, whether there is a pattern of improper activity, and the effect of the improper activity on others or on the judicial system.”


Either way, the complaints would have closure.


Where Things Now Stand
At its simplest, the situation is this. Chief Justice Roberts has received complaints of judicial misconduct and he has done the right thing: he has sent the complaints to a trusted judge to handle in accordance with the law. It is likely that he does not know precisely what the judge will do.


It is even possible that Judge Tymkovich will deal with the complaints on their substance, independent of politics. (What a strange thought!) In fact, if Judge Tymkovich were to decide the case on any other basis, he himself would be open to complaint for judicial misconduct. At this point, we have no evidence to suggest that the entire judicial system has become corrupted by politics.


Time will tell.



We do know that if the review of judicial misconduct by the Tenth Circuit attempts to sweep things under the rug, public interest in the issue will only grow.

[*bfine32*]

Seems like a good place to put this tidbit:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/gop-chairman-asks-doj-probe-kavanaugh-accuser-avenatti-174621786--politics.html

Quote:Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley on Thursday asked for a criminal investigation into whether Julie Swetnick and her attorney, Michael Avenatti, conspired to provide false statements to Congress and obstructed a congressional investigation during the confirmation process for Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Curious how #metoo will react to this.

[Belsnickel]

(10-25-2018, 11:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Seems like a good place to put this tidbit:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/gop-chairman-asks-doj-probe-kavanaugh-accuser-avenatti-174621786--politics.html


Curious how #metoo will react to this.

If they are found to have made a false claim, the movement will be angry and speak against them. False accusations hurt the movement.

[SunsetBengal]

Looking like Avenatti's 15 minutes of fame are about exhausted.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/new-questions-raised-about-avenatti-claims-regarding-kavanaugh/ar-BBOUy0Z?ocid=spartandhp

Seems witnesses might have signed statements written by Avenatti, that they didn't fully read. Seems like the witnesses completely contradict Avenatti's sworn statements in NBC news interview.

Quote:But reached by phone independently from Avenatti on Oct. 3, the woman said she only "skimmed" the declaration. After reviewing the statement, she wrote in a text on Oct. 4 to NBC News: "It is incorrect that I saw Brett spike the punch. I didn't see anyone spike the punch...I was very clear with Michael Avenatti from day one."