SURVEY: Is Brett Kavanaugh suitable for the Supreme Court?

[SheungWan]

His testimony showed him up to be a lightweight, aggressive and a liar, but hey, at least aggressive lightweight supporters are happy.

[marc651]

Short answer: No, he is not suitable

 

Unless you want to weaken the US further, and break progress even more. Turn back time.

Nothing good can come out of this, when the leadership and the highest courts are run by very conservative folks.

 

The whole story about the allegations are totally not the point, the point is what kind of jurispredence we can expect from this guy. He will rule against any sensible jurisprudence, be it abortion, health care, gay rights, gun laws,  legalization of marihuana, you name it, with 5 out of 4 supreme court judge seats now in the conservative camp, the US will degrade back to narrow minded, counterproductive 50's-style legislation while the world moves on.  End of the day, over time, the position of the US in the world will be weakened as it slides from an innovative nation to a more backwards one (adding to the isolationalist and conflict enhancing politics that undermine the long term future outlooks). Its a process that has been accelerated since "you know who" is in power.

 

[Stocky]

I see the Russian troll farm has been busy on this one.

[bristolboy]

15 minutes ago, riclag said:

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" 

Glad to know you believe that Trump's main opponent in the presidential race is innocent.

[55Jay]

1 minute ago, bristolboy said:

Glad to know you believe that Trump's main opponent in the presidential race is innocent.

But but but, Hillary!  ????

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, 55Jay said:

But but but, Hillary!  ????

Given the member's past statements about said person and the discrepancy between that and his current stand on Kavanaugh, I think it's a valid observation.

[allanos]

15 hours 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."

 

 

 

I think what is being overlooked here is that Kavanaugh was defending himself, his family, his self-worth and self-respect in a highly charged situation when responding to ad hominem attacks of the most egregious kind, clearly biased and perhaps outright false, allegations of sexual impropriety - and worse, by accusers who were unable to have their charges against him corroborated.  This is diametrically opposed to the dispassion and impartiality of his deliberations that have been, and will be, displayed in a courtroom setting.  These ultimate criticisms of his demeanour, in the situation I mention above, by the Democrats, was really their last refuge, because all else had failed them.  The thing was a set-up from the start, and it seems you have been unable to find some objectivity, in your critique as to Kavanaugh's suitability as a justice of SCOTUS.

[newatthis]

4 hours ago, wwest5829 said:

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.

 

Along that line, "The Pelican Brief" by John Grisham is a top read.

[Becker]

1 minute ago, allanos said:

I think what is being overlooked here is that Kavanaugh was defending himself, his family, his self-worth and self-respect in a highly charged situation when responding to ad hominem attacks of the most egregious kind, clearly biased and perhaps outright false, allegations of sexual impropriety - and worse, by accusers who were unable to have their charges against him corroborated.  This is diametrically opposed to the dispassion and impartiality of his deliberations that have been, and will be, displayed in a courtroom setting.  These ultimate criticisms of his demeanour, in the situation I mention above, by the Democrats, was really their last refuge, because all else had failed them.  The thing was a set-up from the start, and it seems you have been unable to find some objectivity, in your critique as to Kavanaugh's suitability as a justice of SCOTUS.

Well, I don't agree with you that I have been unable to "find some objectivity" and I'm far from alone in believing that Kavanaugh is unfit for the SCOTUS.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2018/10/04/unprecedented-unfathomable-more-than-law-professors-sign-letter-after-kavanaugh-hearing/?utm_term=.f0cfcb771133

What was a signed letter from 1000 law professors has now increased to 2400. I repeat; 2400.

 

[riclag]

7 minutes ago, allanos said:

I think what is being overlooked here is that Kavanaugh was defending himself, his family, his self-worth and self-respect in a highly charged situation when responding to ad hominem attacks of the most egregious kind, clearly biased and perhaps outright false, allegations of sexual impropriety - and worse, by accusers who were unable to have their charges against him corroborated.  This is diametrically opposed to the dispassion and impartiality of his deliberations that have been, and will be, displayed in a courtroom setting.  These ultimate criticisms of his demeanour, in the situation I mention above, by the Democrats, was really their last refuge, because all else had failed them.  The thing was a set-up from the start, and it seems you have been unable to find some objectivity, in your critique as to Kavanaugh's suitability as a justice of SCOTUS.

Confirmed!

[riclag]

I suppose it all comes down to getting it right(corrected). What is to be done about it! Should of could of he said they said .The American voters will have the say! Supposedly!!!!!! 

Edited October 7, 2018 by riclag

[allanos]

14 hours ago, sirineou said:

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.

Not well-vetted? Is this a joke? 7 thorough investigations during his career, 150 contacts (including "witnesses") of one kind or another interviewed by the FBI, with no gainsaying of his impeccable character whatsoever.  What would constitute adequate vetting, would you say?

[Fairynuff]

16 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...?

 

 

Perhaps she should be hunting Neanderthal apes

[allanos]

8 hours 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.

 

 

 

So . . . "allegations" are good enough for you; you are not interested in the truth of an allegation.  Interesting philosophy; you are in deep trouble, morally, I would say.

[Becker]

9 minutes ago, allanos said:

 

So . . . "allegations" are good enough for you; you are not interested in the truth of an allegation.  Interesting philosophy; you are in deep trouble, morally, I would say.

I think you will find that those who consider him unsuitable for the job believe his cringe-worthy performance during the confirmation hearing is reason enough to disqualify him.

Edited October 7, 2018 by Becker

[Nyezhov]

4 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

 

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

 

 

So you have Sheldon Whitehouse do your thinking for you? Why dont you read some of Justice Kavanaughs controversial decisions yourself. Ever wonder why his record is so good on cert before the SupCt?

[Jonnapat]

Absolutely amazed at the 48% approval after viewing the Senate hearing.

Partisan politics at play.

[allanos]

17 minutes ago, Becker said:

I think you will find that those who consider him unsuitable for the job believe his cringe-worthy performance during the confirmation hearing is reason enough to disqualify him.

The majority of persons who feel his "performance" was anything but cringe-worthy fully empathise with his predicament and believe they would act similarly if backed into the same corner that he was.  One has to be dispassionate to the point of being soul-less if one's emotions are not inflamed by the abuse, falsehoods and extreme fabrications to which Kavanaugh and his family (including his young daughters) were subjected.  

 

In all of this, one noteworthy fact has not received much attention, it seems.  The Democrats, particularly Diane Feinstein, working initially to her own agenda but thereafter fully supported by her Democrat colleagues (who are anything but "democratic", it must be said), chose to sit on Blasey Ford's allegation against Kavanaugh until the last possible moment.  One would have to be extremely blinkered not to know or understand why this was so.  A clearly political move.

 

Secondly, and lacking all humanity, poor Blasey Ford was thrust into the limelight by the same Feinstein, against her wishes for confidentiality and in which she then struggled to show credibility to the onlooking world.  It is possible she will never fully recover from this trauma. Who cannot have sympathy for her?  Nevertheless, this whole matter could have been handled behind the scenes in a bi-partisan manner, and nicely put to bed, with honour intact on all sides.  This did not suit the Democrats, however, who have such a loathing for DT and what he represents that they are prepared to put principle to one side in their endeavours, in favour of politics.  Despite the election of BK, there were no winners in this debacle.

[Becker]

20 minutes ago, allanos said:

The majority of persons who feel his "performance" was anything but cringe-worthy fully empathise with his predicament and believe they would act similarly if backed into the same corner that he was.  One has to be dispassionate to the point of being soul-less if one's emotions are not inflamed by the abuse, falsehoods and extreme fabrications to which Kavanaugh and his family (including his young daughters) were subjected.  

 

In all of this, one noteworthy fact has not received much attention, it seems.  The Democrats, particularly Diane Feinstein, working initially to her own agenda but thereafter fully supported by her Democrat colleagues (who are anything but "democratic", it must be said), chose to sit on Blasey Ford's allegation against Kavanaugh until the last possible moment.  One would have to be extremely blinkered not to know or understand why this was so.  A clearly political move.

 

Secondly, and lacking all humanity, poor Blasey Ford was thrust into the limelight by the same Feinstein, against her wishes for confidentiality and in which she then struggled to show credibility to the onlooking world.  It is possible she will never fully recover from this trauma. Who cannot have sympathy for her?  Nevertheless, this whole matter could have been handled behind the scenes in a bi-partisan manner, and nicely put to bed, with honour intact on all sides.  This did not suit the Democrats, however, who have such a loathing for DT and what he represents that they are prepared to put principle to one side in their endeavours, in favour of politics.  Despite the election of BK, there were no winners in this debacle.

I disagree that there are no winners. Those who want a partisan SCOTUS are clearly celebrating now. 

And WRT the excuses for Kavanaugh's cringe-worthy confirmation hearing performance I would yet again draw your attention to the fact that 2400 law professors have signed a letter saying they believe he's unfit for the job. 

Edited October 7, 2018 by Becker

[sirineou]

1 hour ago, allanos said:

Not well-vetted? Is this a joke? 7 thorough investigations during his career, 150 contacts (including "witnesses") of one kind or another interviewed by the FBI, with no gainsaying of his impeccable character whatsoever.  What would constitute adequate vetting, would you say?

Obviously not well vetted otherwise the allegations would had being  no surprise.  As far as "impeccable character" is concern,   you and me certainly have a different definition of impeccable.  

[allanos]

17 minutes ago, Becker said:

I disagree that there are no winners. Those who want a partisan SCOTUS are clearly celebrating now. 

And WRT the excuses for Kavanaugh's cringe-worthy confirmation hearing performance I would yet again draw your attention to the fact that 2400 law professors have signed a letter saying they believe he's unfit for the job. 

 Those who want a partisan SCOTUS are clearly celebrating now. 

 

This is true.  However, you are overlooking the individual human tragedies which have been thrown up as a result of the machinations of the Dems and the subsequent besmirching of the Senate and the Senate judiciary committee and its processes, all of which has done a dis-service to the American people.

 

I would yet again draw your attention to the fact that 2400 law professors have signed a letter saying they believe he's unfit for the job. 

 

Selecting isolated "facts" to support your positon does you no credit, and, in fact, undermines your argument.

 

As far back as the year 2010 (8 years ago) there was a total of 17080 law professors in the US of A. I think it would be not too far adrift to estimate that there are now more than 20 000 such professors in America, based on previous growth rates.

 

Your 2400 law professors who are against Brett Kavanaugh (many, if not the majority, who will have their own political biases) represent, at best, 12% of the number of law professors in the country.

 

I think we can live with that!

 

 

[allanos]

7 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Obviously not well vetted otherwise the allegations would had being  no surprise.  As far as "impeccable character" is concern,   you and me certainly have a different definition of impeccable.  

Perhaps you have knowledge of Kavanaugh's personal life that the rest of us, and including the FBI, are not privy to?

 

Aside from our different interpretations of what constitutes impeccable character, I await with some interest to hear what you believe would comprise a "well-vetted", to use your phrase, investigation into Kavanaugh's background, if the facts I cited are not good enough for you.

[sirineou]

5 hours ago, connda said:

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. 

Not all, some do.

Every picture of Lady Justice is depicted blindfolded, this is to signify impartiality. Uncontrolled anger is certainly not imparcial.  

I hope we would agree that this is not a desirable attribute and attempts should be made to reduce it or eliminate it.

[abrahamzvi]

17 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.

How do you explain the fact that an Ex Supreme Court Justice openly in an unprecedented manner, expressed the view that Kavanaugh is unfit for the position???

[gjoo888]

16 hours 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.

There's almost 18,000 law professors in the US. Does that mean 17,000 approve of his confirmation? I'm also willing to bet, most if not all of them are Democrats. The American Bar Association gave Kavanaugh it's very highest rating.

[ToddinChonburi]

Interesting that people are focusing on anger.  His family had to leave there home because of death threats. He has a 10 year old daughter, how would you defend your family ?

 

[seajae]

16 hours ago, Becker said:

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

by all means show me where I did that, the only ones that dont want to believe the truth are dems, totally pathetic but thats how they operate or do you now think the fbi were not honest, of course your only claim was totally unsupported by any of the witnesses but that doesnt matter, dems belong in the gutter for what they have done

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, Nyezhov said:

So you have Sheldon Whitehouse do your thinking for you? Why dont you read some of Justice Kavanaughs controversial decisions yourself. Ever wonder why his record is so good on cert before the SupCt?

Considering that the court has been majority right wing for an extremely long time it's not surprising at all. What is surprising is that when it comes to the 4th amendment he's far more in favor of the power of the government over the rights of individual citizens. But since you've made clear repeatedly how much you distrust government power, I'm sure you are secretly opposed to the selection of this newest justice.

[Nyezhov]

1 hour ago, Becker said:

I disagree that there are no winners. Those who want a partisan SCOTUS are clearly celebrating now. 

You mean those who dont want a partisan SCOTUS

[IAMHERE]

Good judgement isn't a born trait, most learn good judgement from bad mistakes. Not many are innocent.

Quote