SURVEY: Is Brett Kavanaugh suitable for the Supreme Court?

[Scott]

With the confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh looking like the most likely outcome, in your opinion, is he suitable for the Supreme Court?

 

Please feel free to leave a comment.

[Morch]

I like beer too. But that doesn't make one a great SC candidate.

[Scottjouro]

Yes and the atempted smear campaign by the MSM and the left was absolutely disgusting and the only reason it occured as they were trying to get at Trump

 

Having watched Christine Fords testimony, quite obvious she was lying under oath...

 

And on a more lighter note, i understand that so called comedian Amy Schumer was flapping her bingo wings in DC in protest against Judge Kavanaugh, i thought said "comedian" had promised to move to Canada if Trump became President ?...so simple question " sweetheart" what you doing in DC and shouldnt you be moose hunting in the great white North...?

 

 

[KMartinHandyman]

Yes

[Nyezhov]

He is one of the most highly respected jurists on the most prestigious Circuit Court in the US Court System. His track record (meaning affirmances vis a vis reversals) is stellar. His opinions are cogent and well written. He is well respected by his peers and by those who have worked with him and appeared before him. There is no disqualifying information in his background.

 

He is as qualified, or more, than other recent appointees such as Sotomayor and Kagan who were not subjected to the slanders that he was subjected to. I want his confirmation, as his judicial philosophy mirrors mine, but that has nothing to do with qualifications. Elections have consequences. President Obama gave us qualified nominees in accord with his judicial philosophy, now President Trump is doing the same.

[Becker]

8 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

He is one of the most highly respected jurists on the most prestigious Circuit Court in the US Court System. His track record (meaning affirmances vis a vis reversals) is stellar. His opinions are cogent and well written. He is well respected by his peers and by those who have worked with him and appeared before him.

LOL! 

https://www.thewrap.com/over-1000-law-professors-sign-open-letter-opposing-kavanaugh/

[Scottjouro]

5 minutes ago, Becker said:

LOL! 

https://www.thewrap.com/over-1000-law-professors-sign-open-letter-opposing-kavanaugh/

Kinda reminds me of the old saying those who can do, those who cant teach, besides your source isnt exactly middle of the road either is it ? Rather left wing Marxist 

Edited October 6, 2018 by Scottjouro

[Nyezhov]

9 minutes ago, Becker said:

LOL! 

https://www.thewrap.com/over-1000-law-professors-sign-open-letter-opposing-kavanaugh/

Their politics aside, the objection apparently is that he got angry at the politcal smears against him at the hearings. That has no bearing on his performance as a distinguished Judge in the past, nor does it in any fashion negate what litigants and clerks say about him. His performance on the bench is what counts. Stellar.

[Becker]

5 minutes ago, Scottjouro said:

Kinda reminds me of the old saying those who can do, those who cant teach, besides your source isnt exactly middle of the road either is it ? Rather left wing Marxist 

Coming from a person who apparently is so far right he's fallen off reality's edge "Marxist" to you probably means people with a centrist view.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/thewrap/

[Scottjouro]

3 minutes ago, Becker said:

Coming from a person who apparently is so far right he's fallen off reality's edge "Marxist" to you probably means people with a centrist view.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/thewrap/

Funny that from their own poll on the site...looks rather lefty marxist to me...certainly that appears to be the opinion of pollsters

 

 

[sirineou]

No! and not only because of the sexual impropriety allegations, but mostly because of the way he handled himself under pressure, and because of the damage the cloud over his head will inflict on the Supreme Court institution. 

There are  many other conservative qualified candidates , why him? why now?  

The answer is midterm elections.By now he is not the best option , he is the politically expedient option.  

[Becker]

3 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Their politics aside, the objection apparently is that he got angry at the politcal smears against him at the hearings. That has no bearing on his performance as a distinguished Judge in the past, nor does it in any fashion negate what litigants and clerks say about him. His performance on the bench is what counts. Stellar.

Did you actually read the article linked? If you can't be bothered then why reply to the post? If you had you would have found that the 1000 law professors found that both his temperament and partiality disqualified him from the SCOTUS position.

 

Oh, and on your blanket statement that he is well respected by his peers: 

"We have differing views about the other qualifications of Judge Kavanaugh. But we are united, as professors of law and scholars of judicial institutions, in believing that he did not display the impartiality and judicial temperament requisite to sit on the highest court of our land,” the letter concludes."

 

 

 

[sirineou]

14 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Their politics aside, the objection apparently is that he got angry at the politcal smears against him at the hearings. That has no bearing on his performance as a distinguished Judge in the past, nor does it in any fashion negate what litigants and clerks say about him. His performance on the bench is what counts. Stellar.

Not that he got angry, we all get angry, but by how he handled his anger. 

When confirmed to the bench, I sure hope he don't get angry while hearing a case. 

[Nyezhov]

Just now, sirineou said:

 because of the damage the cloud over his head will inflict on the Supreme Court institution. 

 

So reward misconduct is what you are saying. Because they could not defeat Kavanaugh on the merits, throw mud on him and then say "oh he is damaged goods".

 

Isnt that sort of like a defendant being sentenced for murdering his parents asking for leniency because he is an orphan?

 

If we permit the destruction of a distinguished jurist via slander, lies, innuendo or whatever, arent we cheapening our politics even more. 

[sirineou]

4 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

So reward misconduct is what you are saying. Because they could not defeat Kavanaugh on the merits, throw mud on him and then say "oh he is damaged goods".

 

Isnt that sort of like a defendant being sentenced for murdering his parents asking for leniency because he is an orphan?

 

If we permit the destruction of a distinguished jurist via slander, lies, innuendo or whatever, arent we cheapening our politics even more. 

even if what you say above is correct, which is not IMO and the opinion of many others, it still does not explain away his anger management issue. He was tested and he failed!

[utalkin2me]

My analogy is if you managed a local pool and needed to hire a lifeguard, and the guy showed up for the job could not swin because he was stoned, and had no concern for people's saftey during the interview, and you give him the job anyway. That must be one Micahel Phelps <deleted> because he did everything in the world possible to convince you not to hire him when he showed up. I suppose it is on you if people end of dying or being injured in that pool. 

[Nyezhov]

3 minutes ago, Becker said:

Did you actually read the article linked? If you can't be bothered then why reply to the post? If you had you would have found that the 1000 law professors found that both his temperament and partiality disqualified him from the SCOTUS position.

 

Oh, and on your blanket statement that he is well respected by his peers: 

"We have differing views about the other qualifications of Judge Kavanaugh. But we are united, as professors of law and scholars of judicial institutions, in believing that he did not display the impartiality and judicial temperament requisite to sit on the highest court of our land,” the letter concludes."

 

 

 

Yes I did. Did you? Have you read the statements from folks who know him, or who have worked for him, or appeared before him? Have you read any of his opinions?

 

1. Partiality is a political term. They oppose him because of the fact that his judicial philosphy is not in accord with theirs. Furthermore, they base their objections on his response when he appeared before the commitee after being pilloried and slandered in his view, in an orchestrated political hit job that victimized not only him, but his family and Ms. Ford. Ones political weltanshauung affects ones view of his conduct, just like your objections to his confirmation are amply demonstrated by your Avatar and slogan...here on a Board relating to life and fun in Thailand, your hatred of President Trump is so overwhelming that you feel the need to advertise it. It therefore goes without saying that you view his performance at the hearing as less than stellar, and opinion you are entitled to hold as long as you understand that it is as biased as any other opinion. Others may disagree with your analysis of his performance, supporters of the President or not....they may justify his anger by reasonably considering what has been done to him and his family...and indeed the entire nation, by one of the most disgraceful performances by politicians since Joe McCarthy. My personal view is that his judicial record prior to this hearing amply demonstrates his qualifications. MY view is of course biased since I am a member of the originalist school of thought, and welcome another jJudge with his philosphy to the Court.

 

2. Law professors are not his "peers" unless or until they work for him, or appear before him and can make a judgement as to his impartiality and temperament.  Law professors are not even always admitted lawyers. But, Those lawyers who are his peers already made their judgement and provided it to the senate. And, how many Law Professors in ths nation did not sighn the letter.

 

This entire process was a farce and a disgrace. If you think otherwise, that is your particular problem. One can be partisan, and still recognize immorality.

[Bluespunk]

He is completely unfit for the role. 

[Nyezhov]

30 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Not that he got angry, we all get angry, but by how he handled his anger. 

When confirmed to the bench, I sure hope he don't get angry while hearing a case. 

Well he has written 366 decisions and never a report of him getting angry. On the other hand, if someone walks into his courtroom and yells "you are a molester", at least he can refer it for prosecution for contempt. Every human being would get angry I assume when cartoons are published showing his child praying, or op eds being written saying he shouldnt coach kids basketball.

 

I am thinking of that recent oped by the famous libel lawyer (I think he represnted the Atalnta bomber dude and is representing the British dude suing Musk) wherein he states Kavanaugh should sue them all. I give him credit that he hasnt.

[seajae]

54 minutes ago, Becker said:

Did you actually read the article linked? If you can't be bothered then why reply to the post? If you had you would have found that the 1000 law professors found that both his temperament and partiality disqualified him from the SCOTUS position.

 

Oh, and on your blanket statement that he is well respected by his peers: 

"We have differing views about the other qualifications of Judge Kavanaugh. But we are united, as professors of law and scholars of judicial institutions, in believing that he did not display the impartiality and judicial temperament requisite to sit on the highest court of our land,” the letter concludes."

 

 

 

and the letter they wrote before that stated the opposite, he was accused of gang raping women and organizing them, his family was dragged though the mud as was his name and they even called for his daughters to be raped as well as made jokes about them, I know as a father I would have done a lot more than what he did especially when the fbi have shown that some of what was stated at the hearing by his accuser was in fact lies under oath(as can be found stated elsewhere, the second front door was put in to access a spare room they rented out to other people, she coached her friend on how to "handle" a lie detector and this friend tried to get one of the "witnesses" to change her story plus of course her being scared of flying ) as well as exonerating him, he did what any normal father would have done in the same situation. Problem is that this is being decided on party lines, democrats refuse to accept the truth as can be seen in here as well as everywhere else, I vote for neither so I am impartial and look at the evidence, never seen so many lies and innuendo used by a political party because they hate the president because their candidate lost, truly pathetic. 

Edited October 6, 2018 by seajae

[Jingthing]

Impeach Kavanaugh.

 

 

[Becker]

36 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

This entire process was a farce and a disgrace. If you think otherwise, that is your particular problem. 

It's not a problem it's an opinion, an opinion shared by a 1000 law professors. No wonder you turn to weak deflections.

[Becker]

25 minutes ago, seajae said:

and the letter they wrote before that stated the opposite, he was accused of gang raping women and organizing them, his family was dragged though the mud as was his name and they even called for his daughters to be raped as well as made jokes about them, I know as a father I would have done a lot more than what he did especially when the fbi have shown that some of what was stated at the hearing by his accuser was in fact lies under oath(as can be found stated elsewhere, the second front door was put in to access a spare room they rented out to other people, she coached her friend on how to "handle" a lie detector and this friend tried to get one of the "witnesses" to change her story plus of course her being scared of flying ) as well as exonerating him, he did what any normal father would have done in the same situation. Problem is that this is being decided on party lines, democrats refuse to accept the truth as can be seen in here as well as everywhere else, I vote for neither so I am impartial and look at the evidence, never seen so many lies and innuendo used by a political party because they hate the president because their candidate lost, truly pathetic. 

If all you can do is regurgitate half-truths and outright lies you're better off not posting.

[Nyezhov]

6 minutes ago, Becker said:

It's not a problem it's an opinion, an opinion shared by a 1000 law professors. No wonder you turn to weak deflections.

I see you didnt address the rest of my post, rather, just say "weak deflections". To the casual reader, res ipsa loquitur as we say.

 

Its all good, he is getting confirmed.

 

I assume y'all are praying for the health of Justice Ginsburg? She has shown some real impartiality since President Trump got elected hasnt she?? Havent seen any law Professors writing about her or Senators screeching for impeachment.

[Becker]

40 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Well he has written 366 decisions and never a report of him getting angry.

So if you had to defend a rapist your defence would be "well, there are no reports he has done this before"?

Forget what he's done or not done earlier. His performance during his confirmation hearing alone disqualifies him as a SCOTUS candidiate.

[sirineou]

21 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Well he has written 366 decisions and never a report of him getting angry. On the other hand, if someone walks into his courtroom and yells "you are a molester", at least he can refer it for prosecution for contempt. Every human being would get angry I assume when cartoons are published showing his child praying, or op eds being written saying he shouldnt coach kids basketball.

 

I am thinking of that recent oped by the famous libel lawyer (I think he represnted the Atalnta bomber dude and is representing the British dude suing Musk) wherein he states Kavanaugh should sue them all. I give him credit that he hasnt.

If he thinks it has merit he should certainly sue them, IMO it would be a stupid thing opening him to discovery, so i guess you are giving him credit for not being stupid, but stupidity is not the issue, the issue is that he did not handle himself well at the hearing, this not only open issues concerning his character , but it did not endear him  to a sizable segment of the population.   His confirmation will go a long way toward increasing distrust of the supreme court institution. 

We have sexual allegations, we have his performance at the hearings, and we have a piss poor 37% public support of his nomination,  

  So we are back to the beginning of my argument, Why him? Why Now? if not for political considerations pertaining to the midterm elections. 

  The truth of the matter is that Trump made a poor choice of a not well vetted candidate, his hubris did not allow him the defeat of dropping him, and nominating a better qualified individual  from a vast pool of qualified , conservative candidates. and now he finds himself against the midterms where he will probably lose the House and possibly the Senate and is forcing an unqualified candidate to a lifelong appointment down our throats.

[Nyezhov]

7 minutes ago, Becker said:

If all you can do is regurgitate half-truths and outright lies you're better off not posting.

Care to pint out the "half truths" or "outright lies" he posted.

 

Do you deny he was accused of "gang rape"?

Do you deny that his daughter was the subject of a reprehensible political cartoon?

Do you deny the facts surrounding the Second Front Door?

Do you contest the polygraph coaching allegation?

Do you deny that a witness was pressured by her camp?

Do you deny that she is in fact not afraid to fly?

 

Have you asked yourself who paid for her polygraph? Have you asked yourself who paid for her high priced lawyers? Do you deny that her attorneys are associated with the Democratic party?

 

Do you deny that an experienced sex crimes prosecutor gave short shrift to her story?

 

I could go on, I await your response.

[Becker]

6 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

I see you didnt address the rest of my post, rather, just say "weak deflections". To the casual reader, res ipsa loquitur as we say.

 

Its all good, he is getting confirmed.

 

I assume y'all are praying for the health of Justice Ginsburg? She has shown some real impartiality since President Trump got elected hasnt she?? Havent seen any law Professors writing about her or Senators screeching for impeachment.

"I see you didnt address the rest of my post, rather, just say "weak deflections". To the casual reader, res ipsa loquitur as we say."

Who are "we"? Certainly not the base Trump supporter. And exactly what is the matter that speaks for itself?

 

"I assume y'all are praying for the health of Justice Ginsburg?"

I'm an atheist.

 

"She has shown some real impartiality since President Trump got elected hasnt she?? Havent seen any law Professors writing about her or Senators screeching for impeachment."

Not many Professors nor Senators from either party. Plenty of screeching from certain quarters tough.

[Nyezhov]

7 minutes ago, Becker said:

So if you had to defend a rapist your defence would be "well, there are no reports he has done this before"?

Forget what he's done or not done earlier. His performance during his confirmation hearing alone disqualifies him as a SCOTUS candidiate.

LOL...as to the first....straw man argument.

 

As to the second point, I reckon the Senators charged with the constitutional duty in this matter, including one fair minded Democrat, feel otherwise.

[Nyezhov]

1 minute ago, Becker said:

"I see you didnt address the rest of my post, rather, just say "weak deflections". To the casual reader, res ipsa loquitur as we say."

Who are "we"? Certainly not the base Trump supporter. And exactly what is the matter that speaks for itself?

 

"I assume y'all are praying for the health of Justice Ginsburg?"

I'm an atheist.

 

"She has shown some real impartiality since President Trump got elected hasnt she?? Havent seen any law Professors writing about her or Senators screeching for impeachment."

Not many Professors nor Senators from either party. Plenty of screeching from certain quarters tough.

I dont quite understand your point about President Trumps "base".

 

Regardless, let me narrow the issue, as we say:

 

Do you believe that Justice Ginsburgs statements about President Trump should mandate her recusal from all further cases wherein the Governemt is a party and where the issue is one of executive action? If not, why not? If so, how does her situation differ from soon to be Justice Kavanaugh in terms of judicial temperament and ability to be impartial?