SURVEY: Is Brett Kavanaugh suitable for the Supreme Court?

[Nyezhov]

45 minutes ago, abrahamzvi said:

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???

He is entitled to his opinion. He cites "potential bias" which I have already discussed, infra.

 

Your user name is my Grandfathers name btw. That means you would have been born in 1890ish, in the Lower East Side.

Edited October 7, 2018 by Nyezhov

[simple1]

14 minutes ago, gjoo888 said:

<SNIP> The American Bar Association gave Kavanaugh it's very highest rating.

Which is currently being re-evaluated due to his behaviour at the hearing.

 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/american-bar-association-reopens-kavanaugh-evaluation

 

On this forum there is some really nasty hyper partisan commentary in support of Kavanaugh / Trump IMO underlines the damage the Trump Presidency is generating with his constant aggressive vile degeneration of anyone / organisation who critique him.

[Nyezhov]

12 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Which is currently being re-evaluated due to his behaviour at the hearing.

 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/american-bar-association-reopens-kavanaugh-evaluation

 

On this forum there is some really nasty hyper partisan commentary in support of Kavanaugh / Trump IMO underlines the damage the Trump Presidency is generating with his constant aggressive vile degeneration of anyone / organisation who critique him.

Alternatively, one could say the vitriol spewed by those who hate President Trump underlines the damage being done to the American polity by folks who are still not willing to accept the results of the election.

 

 

 

 

[Hummin]

5 hours 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. 

Im laughing, but it is not because of your statement, but because there is to

many stupid people in this world, who believe this crap!

[Jingthing]

There are clear grounds for impeaching our new "justice" when the democrats take the house based on provable and clear lies under oath to the senate. I'm not sure what the point would be, however, as they won't have the numbers in the senate to actually boot him out. 

We were going to get a far right wing justice regardless but Kavanaugh has extra special bad baggage. Putting him in the court further degrades it's legitimacy. 

[Nyezhov]

 

4 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

There are clear grounds for impeaching our new "justice" when the democrats take the house based on provable and clear lies under oath to the senate. I'm not sure what the point would be, however, as they won't have the numbers in the senate to actually boot him out. 

We were going to get a far right wing justice regardless but Kavanaugh has extra special bad baggage. Putting him in the court further degrades it's legitimacy. 

Care to cite the "clear lies"?

[Kieran00001]

3 hours 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" 

 

I know, now go tell it to the posters here claiming that Ford was lying under oath, unlike Brett, we have no evidence that she lied.

[Kieran00001]

2 hours 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?

 

Engage with what was posted, any single action he made.

[Shouldhaveknownbetter]

Just now, Kieran00001 said:

 

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.

 

If Ms. Ford''s claims were judged in a court of law her claims would have been found bogus.  When your three witnesses all refute your claims, your toast.

[Shouldhaveknownbetter]

Just now, 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.

I think whats overlooked here is that there are more than 17000 law professors in the United States and 1000 or even 3000 would be a small percentage.

[Nyezhov]

34 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

I know, now go tell it to the posters here claiming that Ford was lying under oath, unlike Brett, we have no evidence that she lied.

On the contrary....how about "the door"?

[Becker]

2 hours ago, allanos said:

 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!

 

 

Good for you but the fact that 12% (if indeed your guesstimates are correct) sign a letter stating that a candidate for the SCOTUS is unqualified is unprecedented. 

 

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

Which isolated facts are you referring to? 

[Nyezhov]

15 minutes ago, Shouldhaveknownbetter said:

If Ms. Ford''s claims were judged in a court of law her claims would have been found bogus.  When your three witnesses all refute your claims, your toast.

Not really, its not the number of witnesses its the quality of same.

 

Here, for example, one could argue the credibility of Mr. Judge. Conceivably he could be seen as an accomplice, accordingly, his denials could be deemed to lack credibility by a trier of fact.

 

On the other hand, Ms Fords best friend, named as a witness, who denied all, would be deemed to be a powerful and credible witness as she is disinterested in the proceedings. Her credibility as a witness is further buttressed by the alleged attempts to get her to change her story.

 

Ms. Mitchell (was that her name) is a seriously famous sex crimes PROSECUTOR. That means she has umpteen years of sympathetically dealing with victims. She wouldnt touch Ms Fords case with a 10 foot pole.

 

Assuming all that I hear and read about actual facts is true, from both sides, Justice Kavanaugh did not assault Ms. Ford...beyond any shadow of a doubt.

 

 

[Nyezhov]

5 minutes ago, Shouldhaveknownbetter said:

How about fear of flying, using a cell phone before they were available to the general public.

The fear of flying controversy is extremely disturbing as it raises issues about the ethics of her attorneys....

[Becker]

1 hour ago, seajae said:

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

LOL, a man-child supporter claiming others are in the gutter when they support the ultimate bottom feeder. Priceless! 

 

PS. As you seem to have faith in the FBI do you also believe them when they claim to have found nothing when investigating HRC? 

[Luckysilk]

Still two more dem judges who are ancient. The left must be twitching.

 

At their ages anything could happen.

 

This is one of the many reasons I voted for the President.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Shouldhaveknownbetter]

Just now, Nyezhov said:

The fear of flying controversy is extremely disturbing as it raises issues about the ethics of her attorneys....

You should read the letter Grassley wrote to her attorneys. He basically writes, put up or shut up.

[Becker]

1 hour ago, Nyezhov said:

You mean those who dont want a partisan SCOTUS

No, I don't. Wasn't my post clear enough for you? 

[scorecard]

20 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...?

 

 

 

 

,,,,they were trying to get at Trump.

 

 

The mother of all comments considering trumps track record...

 

[scorecard]

12 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

No...he was not guilty. He was always presumed innocent.

Really...

[scorecard]

14 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Not really, its not the number of witnesses its the quality of same.

 

Here, for example, one could argue the credibility of Mr. Judge. Conceivably he could be seen as an accomplice, accordingly, his denials could be deemed to lack credibility by a trier of fact.

 

On the other hand, Ms Fords best friend, named as a witness, who denied all, would be deemed to be a powerful and credible witness as she is disinterested in the proceedings. Her credibility as a witness is further buttressed by the alleged attempts to get her to change her story.

 

Ms. Mitchell (was that her name) is a seriously famous sex crimes PROSECUTOR. That means she has umpteen years of sympathetically dealing with victims. She wouldnt touch Ms Fords case with a 10 foot pole.

 

Assuming all that I hear and read about actual facts is true, from both sides, Justice Kavanaugh did not assault Ms. Ford...beyond any shadow of a doubt.

 

 

 

 

"On the other hand, Ms Fords best friend, named as a witness, who denied all, would be deemed to be a powerful and credible witness as she is disinterested in the proceedings."

 

Strange illogical comment...

[canuckamuck]

2 hours ago, sirineou said:

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.

Two problems with that analogy. First Lady Justice is portrayed making a judgement, not defending herself about her behavior in a high school party.

Secondly she is wearing a sexy little toga and no underwear. Do you stick with your analogy and say all judges should emulate her as pictured.

Edited October 7, 2018 by canuckamuck

[sirineou]

1 minute ago, canuckamuck said:

Two problems with that analogy. First Lady Justice is portrayed making a judgement, not defending herself about her behavior in a high school party.

Secondly she is wearing a sexy little toga and no underwear. Do you stick with your analogy and say all judges should emulate her as pictured.

Yes indeed 

If Kavanaugh wore a sexy litle toga and no underwear I  would be all for him.

  I hope are proud of yourself, now you got me looking for her underwear.

[Nyezhov]

23 minutes ago, scorecard said:

 

 

"On the other hand, Ms Fords best friend, named as a witness, who denied all, would be deemed to be a powerful and credible witness as she is disinterested in the proceedings."

 

Strange illogical comment...

You are right, I was multitasking. It should read:

 

On the other hand, Ms Fords best friend, named as a witness, who denied all, would be deemed to be a powerful and credible witness as she could be deemed to be testifying adverse to her interests in the proceedings.

 

Thanks for making sure I am accurate.

[Nyezhov]

12 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Yes indeed 

If Kavanaugh wore a sexy litle toga and no underwear I  would be all for him.

  I hope are proud of yourself, now you got me looking for her underwear.

Looks like she is in the air conditioned courtroom....

[Kieran00001]

1 hour ago, Nyezhov said:

sorry that makes no sense in the context of the conversation

Yes it does, I made a post, it contained lots of points, engage with any single one of them instead of asking me repeatedly if I can think for myself, you thought I had posted an opinion piece, you were wrong, so get over it already and address the facts that were presented to you.

[Thingamabob]

He'll be fine. He has survived a disgraceful witch Hunt, and all credit to him for that.

 

I just hope the Dems can find some grown-ups who can mount some badly needed mature opposition to Trump/GOP.

 

[Kieran00001]

1 hour ago, Nyezhov said:

On the contrary....how about "the door"?

 

There is not evidence that she lied about the door, there is speculation, we have actual evidence that Brett lied, and this is actually about him not her.

[Nyezhov]

8 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

Yes it does, I made a post, it contained lots of points, engage with any single one of them instead of asking me repeatedly if I can think for myself, you thought I had posted an opinion piece, you were wrong, so get over it already and address the facts that were presented to you.

All I asked is for you to go to the primary sources, not regurgitate someone elses opinion. Carry on.

Edited October 7, 2018 by Nyezhov

[Nyezhov]

3 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

There is not evidence that she lied about the door, there is speculation, we have actual evidence that Brett lied, and this is actually about him not her.

OK...tell us the lies from Justice Kavanaugh.

 

1. His exact words.

2. The exact material and relevant evidence that demonstrates he perjured himself.

 

Here is the relevant statute, 18 USC 1621

Whoever—

(1)

having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or

(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;

 

Keep on mind that to the best of my understanding, perjury requires corroborating evidence pursuant to US V Wood 39 US 430 (1840). Its been a long time since I did a perjury case so forgive me if im rusty