4 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

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.

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

Thanks, I'm convinced now.

 

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

Quell surprise! Besides, what they vote and what they feel might be two very different things. You (and I) have no idea what they feel.

I am sure he is well qualified although I wish he wasn't as I am far from a conservative in my political views. But I am glad that a claim by some dame of a minor incident that happened as a teenager 36 years ago and which she never reported to anybody didn't affect his nomination. What self respecting red blooded teenage boy didn't try to feel up a girl? If the wowsers have their way the human race will soon become extinct.

1 minute ago, Becker said:

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

Thanks, I'm convinced now.

 

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

Quell surprise! Besides, what they vote and what they feel might be two very different things. You (and I) have no idea what they feel.

1. My job isnt to convince you, that would be an impossible task based on your professed views. My statements are for fair minded people to evaluate and discuss in a reasonable manner.

 

2. I stand corrected then. It should read: "As to the second point, I reckon the Senators charged with the constitutional duty in this matter, including one fair minded Democrat, will make their evaluation of Judge Kavanaugh and vote accordingly"

 

Is that better. Care to address the other issues I have raised?

1 minute ago, Saladin said:

I am sure he is well qualified although I wish he wasn't as I am far from a conservative in my political views.

You should run for the Senate then. You have principles.

19 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Your professed views? Again, look at your avatar. You are clearly not a fan of President Trump. Would you support another nominee of his?

Certainly. There were names on the list that the grown-ups around Trump had put together that it would have been hard for me to argue against, my disgust with him notwithstanding.

Unfortunately and predictably the man-child didn't listen.

49 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

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?

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

Try a little bit harder. Despite your less than stellar record wrt predictions (sorry, couldn't resist) you seem like a fairly coherent person.

 

"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?"

 

Those are good questions. She certainly didn't blow it like Kavanaugh did during her confirmation hearing but have late in her career made negative statements about Trump. IMO she has just stated the obvious but one could certainly have a discussion about the possible need for her to recuse herself from certain cases.

I'm all for discussing her (and her best friend Scalia's) more eyebrow-raising statements but that would be sending us off-topic in a hurry.

Done.  Congratulations Justice Kavanaugh!

Ahhhhh, Kavanaugh confirmed!

The last time work was this good for us salt miners was back in 2016 ????

Troll post removed.  

6 hours 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. 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.

 

Certainly highly respected by the corporations he has spent his career bending over for.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/09/brett-kavanaugh-track-record-675294

7 hours 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 

bet you cannot point to any articles supporting Marxist ideology from The Wrap.

 

EDIT: I do note from your post above you're an extreme right wing ideogue

7 hours 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. 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.

 

Allegedly, Kavanaugh was untruthful while under oath; a fine example set by an appellate court judge during hearings, and under oath, to confirm him as a S C judge. No, he is not suitable.

Allegedly, Kavanaugh has rough handled females when drunk. No, he is not suitable.

 

Kavanaugh is a highly political appointment, not impartial as he states. No, he is not suitable.

 

 

2 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Certainly highly respected by the corporations he has spent his career bending over for.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/09/brett-kavanaugh-track-record-675294

One takes the facts and applies the law. Care to discuss how he has "bent over" for corporations by references to the actual cases and underlying facts, as opposed to citing an opinion piece?

 

Or do you allow others to think for you?

5 hours ago, Becker said:

Despite your less than stellar record wrt predictions (sorry, couldn't resist) you seem like a fairly coherent person.

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

 

5 hours ago, Becker said:

She certainly didn't blow it like Kavanaugh did during her confirmation hearing but have late in her career made negative statements about Trump. IMO she has just stated the obvious but one could certainly have a discussion about the possible need for her to recuse herself from certain cases.

I'm all for discussing her (and her best friend Scalia's) more eyebrow-raising statements but that would be sending us off-topic in a hurry.

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...

1 hour ago, neeray said:

 

Allegedly, Kavanaugh was untruthful while under oath; a fine example set by an appellate court judge during hearings, and under oath, to confirm him as a S C judge. No, he is not suitable.

Allegedly, Kavanaugh has rough handled females when drunk. No, he is not suitable.

 

Kavanaugh is a highly political appointment, not impartial as he states. No, he is not suitable.

 

 

Rather than make bald statements, do you have specific examples of perjury? Are unproven allegations enough to disqualify anyone from the Supreme Court? Did you object to Justices Ginsburg or Kagan as being highly poitical?

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?

If more people knew the history of political expressions by previous Supreme Court Justices both republican and democrat. It’s not only Kavanaugh and Ginsberg, been going on for years.

Since the selection and appointment of these judges appears to be purely in the partisan interests of the ruling party, and because of the declared intention of that ruling party to create a panel of judges that will reflect the political views of the current governing party for many years to come, then I suppose that he is a suitable candidate.

 

If one considers the appointment from the point of his legal and juristic abilities I simply don't know.

 

If you consider the appointment taking into account his astonishing performance at the recent hearings, and his known proclivities then no.

 

His political loyalty and leanings "trump" everything else.

 

Off-topic posts and replies removed.  

 

Continued off-topic trolling and baiting will earn suspensions.  

 

Who keeps calendars from high school and cry's about it?  So lucky he kept them so he could have an excuse for not being at the party where he tried to rape Ford.  Very very lucky, but maybe he forgot to record on the calendar he was planning on getting drunk and doing the devil's triangle with his drunk friend.

11 hours 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. 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.

Thus the rejection by the American Bar Association, Justice Stevens, multitude of law Professors. But, it is a moot point, he is confirmed and the devil take the hind post. Good luck to the Americans.

 

2 hours ago, Nyezhov said:

One takes the facts and applies the law. Care to discuss how he has "bent over" for corporations by references to the actual cases and underlying facts, as opposed to citing an opinion piece?

 

Or do you allow others to think for you?

 

 

Hilarious, did you think to read it?  There is no opinion there, just objective facts regarding his voting history, court decisions and things he has been quoted as having said.

 

And here is another, there is no doubt whose side this swamp dweller is on.

https://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/news/release/whitehouse-reveals-kavanaughs-pro-corporate-right-wing-record-in-scotus-hearing-opener

 

 

Not suitable as unable to control his emotions, anger, outrage under pressure. Nothing to do with political leanings, past judgements, sexual allegations etc. Its about ability to be impartial and able to control personal emotions and not have them influence a decision.

SURVEY: Is Brett Kavanaugh suitable for the Supreme Court?

 

Actually I have a better title to this survey:

Survey: Which way do you lean politically.
 

Conservative:  xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Liberal:          xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

In today's highly polarized political climate, whether Kavanaugh is suitable is really not the issue.  This issue is whether or not the jurist is appointed by a progressive liberal or a conservative president.  Opinions on the suitability of the jurist will simply break down along political lines with virtually no one in the middle, as will the strident, vocal outrage to his confirmation by those on the left.

 

Imho, the Kavanaugh appointment will further polarize the country and I would not be surprised, even at my age, to see major civil unrest in the US that might possibly accelerate into civil war.  Bolshevikism 2.0 meets the Second Amendment Advocates 1.0.  You have 'leaders' in the Democratic Party (e.g., Maxine Waters) urging their supporters to attack Conservatives (sedition), which they are doing - how does that eventually play out? 

I have a pretty good idea.

 

“History doesn't repeat itself but it often rhymes,”

Attributed - Mark Twain

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...

12 hours ago, Nyezhov said:

 President Obama gave us qualified nominees in accord with his judicial philosophy, now President Trump is doing the same.

Good point!

12 hours ago, Scottjouro said:

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

You must be an clairvoyant, can you tell when Trump lying to?

14 minutes ago, Peterw42 said:

Not suitable as unable to control his emotions, anger, outrage under pressure. Nothing to do with political leanings, past judgements, sexual allegations etc. Its about ability to be impartial and able to control personal emotions and not have them influence a decision.

 

Brett's voting history shows an inability to be impartial, do you really think Trump would want someone whose history showed any degree of impartiality at all?  Trumps lawyers, aids and manager have all been incarcerated and flipped, and now his corporations CFO has been granted immunity, I believe Trump has been thinking that if he is to avoid jail then he will need all the partiality he can get!

11 hours 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. 

All judges get angry.  Don't believe me?  Walk into a US court room and slander the judge.  His / Her 'anger' will be evident in the severity of your conviction and sentencing for contempt of court. 

 

Judge Judy for SCOTUS,

 

would bring some highly needed humour to the business:

 

judge-judy.docx

 

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.