SURVEY: Is Brett Kavanaugh suitable for the Supreme Court?

[DavidB4]

Crying and lying, perhaps that makes him the perfect choice for our high court, considering the state or our legal system. Even if people want to completely ignore these women coming forward(bravely) and exposing him just watching his response had me cringing and reminds me again how so many Americans can watch Trump and see something totally different than I do. The only thing I'm glad about is that I'm far away from it, makes it a little less painful to watch the fall. 

[theonetrueaussie]

It seems americans have lost all their common sense, One just has to look at the evidence supplied in the judges case. "He spiked the punch and was part of rape trains", what is your evidence "I saw him near the punch", did you see him putting anything in the punch?, "No but I saw him near the punch". 

Absolutely zero evidence has been given to prove ANY of the claims and yet people here say they were so brave to come forward. Suppose innocent until proven guilty no longer holds in America these days. Maybe we should assume VERN is also guilty just because ELON said so then according to many of the posters here!! 

[Kieran00001]

5 minutes ago, riclag said:

Yes, He supports American values and upholds the laws that Congress makes. He and 8 others, liberal and conservatives  will help maintain and protect the constitution as  was written by the founders of my country. 

 

Great, so which one of them is going to uphold this law?

Quote

(2)

in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true;

is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. This section is applicable whether the statement or subscription is made within or without the United States.

 

[riclag]

1 minute ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Great, so which one of them is going to uphold this law?

 

What are you talking about

[Kieran00001]

2 minutes ago, theonetrueaussie said:

It seems americans have lost all their common sense, One just has to look at the evidence supplied in the judges case. "He spiked the punch and was part of rape trains", what is your evidence "I saw him near the punch", did you see him putting anything in the punch?, "No but I saw him near the punch". 

Absolutely zero evidence has been given to prove ANY of the claims and yet people here say they were so brave to come forward. Suppose innocent until proven guilty no longer holds in America these days. Maybe we should assume VERN is also guilty just because ELON said so then according to many of the posters here!! 

 

Maybe we should not concentrate on the allegations of rape as they are not able to be proven without doubt, and instead concentrate on him committing perjury during his hearing.  Yale has already provided evidence that he lied under oath about his place at the law school.

[Kieran00001]

Just now, riclag said:

What are you talking about

 

We know that he lied under oath, we know that he is guilty of perjury, so who is going to uphold the law?

[theonetrueaussie]

3 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Maybe we should not concentrate on the allegations of rape as they are not able to be proven without doubt, and instead concentrate on him committing perjury during his hearing.  Yale has already provided evidence that he lied under oath about his place at the law school.

Actually from what I read yale came out and said he received NO bump from his grandfather going there in the past. If that is the case then he did NOT lie about it. I don't support either side but it is so easy to see this was a hit job from the start. Democrats were looking for ANYTHING without proof to not let this guy on the supreme court. They made a farce of the hearings and wanted to delay no matter the cost. First it was his impartiality which was confirmed false then the sexual assualt with no evidence then spiking the punch and rape trains with zero evidence then he drank beer in college....now trying to prove he lied about anything under oath...What a complete SHAM!! Anyone that supports what the democrats done has lost all credibility!

[Jingthing]

A very dark time for American democracy. It's basically been lost. It happens.

 

 

"Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation isn't democracy. It's a judicial coup

 

...

For all the justified outrage about sexual assault, involving allegations that Kavanaugh denied, the new supreme court justice represents an even bigger lie than his mindless fabrications about “ralphing” and “boofing”. He can blame his weak stomach if he likes; the rest of us are heaving at the sight of a generation-long confidence trick suckering an entire democracy."

 

 

 

https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/06/brett-kavanaugh-confirmation-supreme-court-republicans

 

 

 

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

 

 

 

[bkkgriz]

Just wait until Ginsburg croaks. Trump will get another justice on the SC. I will enjoy watching leftist heads explode then. 

 

Oh, and ladies, don't be too shocked when men in any position of authority are no longer interested in working with you. Just look at the damage a ridiculous, obvious made up story can cause.

[Kieran00001]

3 minutes ago, theonetrueaussie said:

Actually from what I read yale came out and said he received NO bump from his grandfather going there in the past. If that is the case then he did NOT lie about it. I don't support either side but it is so easy to see this was a hit job from the start. Democrats were looking for ANYTHING without proof to not let this guy on the supreme court. They made a farce of the hearings and wanted to delay no matter the cost. First it was his impartiality which was confirmed false then the sexual assualt with no evidence then spiking the punch and rape trains with zero evidence then he drank beer in college....now trying to prove he lied about anything under oath...What a complete SHAM!! Anyone that supports what the democrats done has lost all credibility!

 

He said, "I have no connections there", when in fact he does, his grandfather, which in Ivy League applications brings with it Legacy status due to having this 'connection'.  That he lied about this is objective fact.

 

He also claimed under oath that he had only found about about the allegation of indecent exposure made against him through the story in the New York Times when we do actually have a detailed report of his team putting together a case to refute the allegation before the article had been published, another objective fact that he lied under oath.

 

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, as they say in American common law.

 

 

 

[Becker]

4 hours ago, Nyezhov said:

Well I predicted Kavanaugh would be approved did I not? And where else were my predictions wrong? Citations and language please?

 

Scalia is dead. The question I asked is on topic IMHO. In light of your objections to Justice Kavanaughs appointment based on temperament, etc, should you also now be calling for the recusal or resignation of Justice Ginsburg, even though "she has stated the obvious" as you put it? I guess the issue is whether your opposition to Justice Kavanaugh is principled or not, in comparison to the other poster who stated, in essence: I hate his philosophy but he is qualified...

"Well I predicted Kavanaugh would be approved did I not?"

My hat's off to you, you're obviously psychic.

 

 "I guess the issue is whether your opposition to Justice Kavanaugh is principled or not, in comparison to the other poster who stated, in essence: I hate his philosophy but he is qualified..."

It's very principled; I hate his philosophy and he's unqualified, a view I share with (among many others) 1000 law professors. I assume I don't have to post that link again?

[riclag]

43 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

We know that he lied under oath, we know that he is guilty of perjury, so who is going to uphold the law?

  We????,but not me and if that's the case ! Bring him up on  charges and indite him,while he is performing his duties as a associate of the SC. He will be acting on many cases while awaiting his due process,just like many others who stay on the  job while going through due process!

Edited October 7, 2018 by riclag

[Kieran00001]

17 minutes ago, bkkgriz said:

Just wait until Ginsburg croaks. Trump will get another justice on the SC. I will enjoy watching leftist heads explode then. 

 

Oh, and ladies, don't be too shocked when men in any position of authority are no longer interested in working with you. Just look at the damage a ridiculous, obvious made up story can cause.

 

Its not like there could be any ladies out there who are now afraid of reporting sexual assaults out of fear that their testimony will be written off as being "obviously made up", is it?  You're clearly quite the gentleman.

[Kieran00001]

6 minutes ago, riclag said:

 Well if that's the case ! Bring him up on  charges and indite him,while he is performing his duties as a associate of the SC. He will be acting on many cases while awaiting his due process,just like many others who stay on the  job while going through due process

 

I thought you said that they were going to uphold the law?  Now I have to do it?

[theonetrueaussie]

11 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

He said, "I have no connections there", when in fact he does, his grandfather, which in Ivy League applications brings with it Legacy status due to having this 'connection'.  That he lied about this is objective fact.

 

He also claimed under oath that he had only found about about the allegation of indecent exposure made against him through the story in the New York Times when we do actually have a detailed report of his team putting together a case to refute the allegation before the article had been published, another objective fact that he lied under oath.

 

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, as they say in American common law.

 

 

 

DO you ever actually listen to yourself...You are basically saying let's not let this guy on the supreme court because he lied about his grandfather at yale. Now let's be smart about this for a second and take off your "Lefty" glasses, what does he have to gain by lying about that statement. Will he suddenly be kicked out if he has "Legacy" ties....NO, That statement has absolutely no impact on whether he would be confirmed or not so why lie about it.

As for "Falsus in Uno falsus" as you claim, EVERY claim against him they have proven to lied and yet you still believe them...why is it that saying only applies to him as you still believe all the women apparently. Even though Ford lied about the door being installed, fear of flying, coaching people in polygraphs, refusing to give the polygraph result out. You are grasping at straws anything right now when you MUST KNOW that there is no shred of evidence proving any of the allegations against him, now you are clinging to him lying about being a legacy as if that somehow overshadows all the work he has done as a judge. You and people like you are the reason trump will win 2020.

[johnnysunshine]

Are you suitable to ask this question?

[riclag]

13 hours ago, Nyezhov said:

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.

So it is said and so it be written!!!!! Brilliant mate! Cheers

[riclag]

13 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

I thought you said that they were going to uphold the law?  Now I have to do it?

What are you talking about! 

[Pedrogaz]

I must say I am shocked at the 46% of people that think the SCOTUS should be political. A Supreme Court should be apolitical and focussed on interpreting the Constitution. It is no place for a right wing zealot who will vote to stifle all laws protecting individuals and hand supremacy to the Government and Corporations.

[meinphuket]

15 hours ago, Scottjouro said:

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...?

 

 

Feel sorry for anyone who scorns someone who got assaulted, demeaned, and then laughed at when they scraped up enough courage to go public.

[riclag]

2 hours ago, Dinobot said:

To those citing his stellar track record, what about lying under oath about a dozen or so verifiable facts while testifying to the senate judiciary committee? Oh, that doesn’t fit your narrative of the straight laced judge so just exclude it...

In America ,we have a process.You are innocent until proven guilty! To prove allegations in this case, perjury,one has to go through the courts with due process of law 

[Ajarnbrian]

It is interesting how Trump supporters assume BK is honest and truthful, while Ms Ford is lying, and the left Democrats assume the opposite. Think for a moment, attending wild drunken parties as a teenager is not likely to result in reliable memories nearly 40 years later. Memories will be hazy and incomplete for starters. And the reconstructed nature of memories as they are recalled but slightly altered over many years means they are not likely to tell the whole story. As I see it both BK and Ms Ford sincerely believe they remember but there is no sign one is more correct than the other. The insults thrown at both of them are sad to see and misguided.

[Kieran00001]

49 minutes ago, theonetrueaussie said:

DO you ever actually listen to yourself...You are basically saying let's not let this guy on the supreme court because he lied about his grandfather at yale. Now let's be smart about this for a second and take off your "Lefty" glasses, what does he have to gain by lying about that statement. Will he suddenly be kicked out if he has "Legacy" ties....NO, That statement has absolutely no impact on whether he would be confirmed or not so why lie about it.

As for "Falsus in Uno falsus" as you claim, EVERY claim against him they have proven to lied and yet you still believe them...why is it that saying only applies to him as you still believe all the women apparently. Even though Ford lied about the door being installed, fear of flying, coaching people in polygraphs, refusing to give the polygraph result out. You are grasping at straws anything right now when you MUST KNOW that there is no shred of evidence proving any of the allegations against him, now you are clinging to him lying about being a legacy as if that somehow overshadows all the work he has done as a judge. You and people like you are the reason trump will win 2020.

 

Name one claim made against him that has been proven to be a lie?  There isn't one.  They have not proven the allegations against him to be false, they have not proven them to be true beyond any reasonable doubt, very different things and you would see that if your view was not obscured by 'righty' blinkers.

 

But yes, I am saying that we should not let him on the Supreme Court because he lied under oath, it matters not whether that helped him gain his position or not, lying under oath is called perjury, its a crime by the way and impeachable as such.

 

[Kieran00001]

12 minutes ago, riclag said:

In America ,we have a process.You are innocent until proven guilty! To prove allegations in this case, perjury,one has to go through the courts with due process of law 

 

For so many Republicans that process doesn't apply to Ford, there seem to be many that think she has been proven to be guilty of making her allegations up despite there having been no process to establish that.

[melvinmelvin]

24 minutes ago, riclag said:

In America ,we have a process.You are innocent until proven guilty! To prove allegations in this case, perjury,one has to go through the courts with due process of law 

 

In America? Maybe in Canada, maybe in Ecuador. I don't know.

But definitely not in the USA, all that changed with midget-Bush and the US concentration camps in Cuba.

Largely, but not fully, backed by the US legal system.

 

 

 

[NickJ]

Dems want to have a 15 justice court.  Feinsteins gas bag husband is friends with Ford. They work together.  Mid terms will see red stronger then ever. With luck RBG will stroke out.

[riclag]

4 minutes ago, Ajarnbrian said:

It is interesting how Trump supporters assume BK is honest and truthful, while Ms Ford is lying, and the left Democrats assume the opposite. Think for a moment, attending wild drunken parties as a teenager is not likely to result in reliable memories nearly 40 years later. Memories will be hazy and incomplete for starters. And the reconstructed nature of memories as they are recalled but slightly altered over many years means they are not likely to tell the whole story. As I see it both BK and Ms Ford sincerely believe they remember but there is no sign one is more correct than the other. The insults thrown at both of them are sad to see and misguided.

Your comment brings to mind,what the accuser used as evidence to back her story,that she was 100% sure it was him,but can't remember where and when and her witnesses can't justifiably corroborate that 100% claim.

He has apologized for some of his comments in defense of the rape allegations that where publicly and viciously put on him.

 

[riclag]

49 minutes ago, meinphuket said:

Feel sorry for anyone who scorns someone who got assaulted, demeaned, and then laughed at when they scraped up enough courage to go public.

She didn't want to go public

[riclag]

24 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

For so many Republicans that process doesn't apply to Ford, there seem to be many that think she has been proven to be guilty of making her allegations up despite there having been no process to establish that.

You mentioned in past comments he committed perjury! I was commenting on that.

 "In America ,we have a process.You are innocent until proven guilty! To prove allegations in this case, perjury,one has to go through the courts with due process of law" 

[Becker]

14 minutes ago, NickJ said:

Dems want to have a 15 justice court.  Feinsteins gas bag husband is friends with Ford. They work together.  Mid terms will see red stronger then ever. With luck RBG will stroke out.

Hopefully not before the McD diet takes care of the man-child.