Q. Is Kavanaugh guilty of being partisan?
Does he favor and lean toward the the Right, or does he truly follow the precepts of the Constitution of the United States.
Some would say the Right ARE the upholders of the Constitution!
(And the Left are the destroyers of the Constitution.)The constitution require all Public Trustees [Art. 6.3] to taken oath, Kavaqnaugh took one at the hearing but http://theweek.com/speedreads/798177/ka … n-fox-news suggests he lied. He can't possibly be a follower of the constitution, he is a follower of his lust to be considered important only.
If he leans to the right, and he does, or the Democratic Senators wouldn't be trying to destroy him, that benefits a strict interpretation of the Constitution.
PS. I think the Democrats will be successful in preventing his nomination.
His testimony Thursday should prevent him and not any Unconstitutional political party but the fact he lied under oath should prevent him.
From Wikipedia:
July 25, 2003: "President George W. Bush nominated Kavanaugh to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to a vacancy created by Judge Laurence Silberman.
Kavanaugh's nomination was stalled in the Senate for nearly three years.
Democratic Senators accused him of being too partisan, with Senator Dick Durbin calling him the "Forrest Gump of Republican politics".
(In 2003, the American Bar Association rated Kavanaugh as "well qualified", but, after opposition from Senate Democrats, rated him in 2006 as only "qualified". His nomination was opposed by People for the American Way.)
May 11, 2006: The United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary recommended confirmation on a 10–8 party-line vote.
May 26, 2006: Confirmed to the court by the United States Senate by a vote of 57–36.
June 1, 2006: Sworn in by Justice Anthony Kennedy, for whom he had previously clerked, during a special Rose Garden ceremony at the White House. Kavanaugh was the fourth judge nominated to the D.C. Circuit by Bush and confirmed by the United States Senate. Kavanaugh was sworn in by Justice Anthony Kennedy while President George W. Bush and Kavanaugh's wife, Ashley Estes-Kavanaugh, looked on.
September 11, 2006 Began hearing cases.
September 27 2006 Had his formal investiture at the Prettyman Courthouse.
November 17, 2006. Released his first published opinion.
July 2007: Democratic Senators Patrick Leahy and Dick Durbin accused Kavanaugh of "misleading" the Senate Judiciary Committee during his nomination. Durbin and Leahy accused Kavanaugh of lying to them in his confirmation hearing when he denied being involved in formulating the Bush administration's detention and interrogation policies in the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks. (In 2002, Kavanaugh had met with other White House lawyers, and talked about whether or not the Supreme Court would approve of denying lawyers to prisoners detained as enemy combatants. Kavanaugh had previously been a law clerk for Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, and predicted in that meeting that Kennedy would not approve of denying legal counsel to those prisoners.) Durbin said, "It appears that you misled me, the Senate Judiciary Committee and the nation."
July 2018: Kavanaugh is under consideration for a nomination to the Supreme Court, which Kavanaugh received.
Notable cases
Kavanaugh had written an opinion and the case had been considered by the Supreme Court. The court adopted his position thirteen times while reversing his position only once.
These included cases involved environmental regulations, criminal procedure, the separation of powers and extraterritorial jurisdiction in human rights abuse cases. He has been regarded as a feeder judge."
ETC
Feeder judge:
https://empiricalscotus.com/2016/08/10/formula/Bush was a liar so he nominated somehow he knew, if he needed one, would ignore the lawyer him.
I know of few people in politics who aren't, why should Kavanaugh be any different, is the question that you should ask.
Because he described a "devil's triangle" as a drinking game.
He's a liar. He knows that statement is patently false.
I've heard in the future more of us will have heightened powers of intuition.
... wouldn't that skill (ESP) be great for lawyers and judges to have?
As it is, we can only hope people have consciences and abide by them.
For those who can live with themselves after they have blatantly lied, especially in court of law, under oath ...
heaven help all of us.Isn't that a great skill for all of us to develop, then ESP will tell us whether our politicians are lying. Or perhaps I should say "in what manner our politicians are lying." If everybody knew when everybody else was being dishonest, what a great purveyor of truth that would be.
Your next to the last statement reminds me of what my best friend said after serving jury duty in criminal court. This good Baptist woman expressed disbelief and shock that a defendant would lie under oath. "I can't believe they looked straight at us (the jury) and lied under oath," she said. Our lawyer co-worker, a good Catholic, just laughed and said that he was surprised that she didn't know that.For certain it would eliminate the liars from any position requiring honesty.
Apparently, he is guilty of more than just being partisan.
He is guilty of being a drinker.
He is guilty of being too emotional, immature.
and guilty of agreeing to give a sitting president too much power.
and as Nature boy has accused:
Guilty of living for his own lust.
Guilty of being a liar.That's a good synopsis. That about sizes it up. I liked him at first, but as more and more things came out at the hearing, somewhere in the proceedings, I got turned off. He definitely did not handle the opposition very well.
What came out at the hearing? The only thing I heard were questions that all asked him WHY he wouldn't support Democratic political games designed to prevent his confirmation. Oh, and that he drank beer, but never to the point of passing out as so many do.
What "came out" at the hearing?Apparently you didn't watch the proceedings. I don't have the inclination to do a synopsis except to say that his little temper tantrum reminded me of Trump. But Kathryn did a pretty good summation. Privileged white males, all.
Actually I watched it from beginning to end. Saw exactly what you did, including ripping apart Democrats playing games with his life, Fords, and their job on the committee. You're right - just like Trump he wasn't gentle and he wasn't PC. He told it like it was, without pulling punches and I like that.
Dislike and hatred of anyone with more money says a lot, doesn't it? If there is a worse excuse for deciding guilt in an attempted rape case without evidence I have yet to hear it. "He's guilty because I don't like him and label him a 'privileged white male' without ever meeting him" just doesn't make it for me. Name calling never does - got anything else?It doesn't matter what anyone else believes, you mind is made up, and so is mine. BTW, did you see Senator Tom Cotton today on Face the Nation. Senator Amy Klobuchar said lawyers say (paraphrasing) If you can't argue logic, argue the facts. If you don't have the facts, argue logic. If you don't have either, pound the table. He is a prime example of pounding the table.
If Professor Ford had behaved that way, those Senators would be all over the airwaves calling her a hysterical, unhinged liar..
Professor Ford wasn't being persecuted.....or even questioned with any zeal. She certainly took chances stepping forward, but she wasn't the subject. And the subject was being hammered in front of tens of millions of people by Democratic Senators who took no pains to even try to disguise their partisanship. They took glee in watching Kavanaugh squirm while they exposed the tiniest details of his life. If they'd treated Ford like they treated Kavanaugh, she would've broken down. In any case, Kavanaugh was at least accurate regards the residual anger over Trump's election, and he called them out on it.
Ford was questioned, with "zeal", I thought, by Republicans. Democrats made speeches instead of searching for the truth of her allegations.
Kavanaugh was questioned with "zeal" by no one. Republicans asked questions designed to show innocence (or at least doubt) and made speeches. Democrats asked only one question (albeit many times): why would he not assist them in destroying his life and delaying or denying his confirmation. An exceedingly stupid question and nothing designed to elicit truth of the allegation at all; just an attempt to make him squirm, as you said. Somehow the attempt (and his refusal) to aid them in their dirty political games was supposed to show guilt, I suppose, but all it showed was that they were not interested in truth, just in delaying tactics.He lied under oath. That should be automatic disqualification.
Do you think he believes s The Devil's Triangle is a drinking game? And boofing is farting? Riiiight.Maybe everyone doesn't have a nasty mind.
I never heard the term in any reference but to a section of ocean off the Florida coast. And never heard "boofing" at all.
Should we wonder and question the character and honesty of people that DO claim to know the term?
Feel free. It wouldn't be the only disingenuous tactic you've employed in defense of obvious liars.
Man, whatever happened to expecting the most basic standards of character for high office?That expectation left long ago. Maybe with Andrew Jackson, maybe with the more modern extreme partisanship, maybe with lifetime congressional jobs. Whatever and whenever, it is long gone and none of our legislators have any.
Funny you should say Andrew Jackson. I was thinking the same thing.
Jackson was a character - involved in multiple gun duels, bar fights, etc. I think he was the one beat a man half to death with his cane in a bar somewhere.
The craziness we see today pales beside his.
Reminds me of a moment in my life. My husband is really weird about things. He used a spoon to measure a poison and bent the spoon, to guarantee it would never be used for food. It was in our garage and a rumour started that he was a drugee. Seems a guy saw the spoon and started the rumor. It seemed bizarre until we found out that some drug addicts bend a spoon to cook a drug, or something like that. It took a drugee to make that claim. It reflected poorly on him. We had never heard of such, before that.
LOL You know, I could just see something like that happening: it sounds like something I would do (bend the spoon, not claim it was for drugs)!
So let me get this straight, if you don't know the meaning of a term, it means that Kavanaugh doesn't know either or it means that you can dismiss what he knows because you've never heard of the term?
These terms were in his yearbook. If he admits to knowing what they mean, then he'll have to explain why and then everything that happened will be exposed because either he participated in boofing and devil's triangles or he hung around people who did.Even if those definitions were known to Kavanaugh, knowing teenage boys and their penchant for bragging, it wouldn't necessarily prove guilt.
It would back up hard sun's claim that Kavanaugh is a punk. Definitely.
Oh, please. I know you're not that gullible. Stop.rationalizing for him. It's really getting ridiculous around here.
Innocent until proven guilty. It amazes me how many use party affiliation to deny a basic American right.
He's not on trial. He's under consideration for a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. If he doesn't get it, he still has a lifetime appointment to the second highest court in the land. I'm quite certain most employers wouldn't hire a guy who lied during the interview. Y'all are the ones making excuses for your party guy. It's so transparent.
LOL. I use the same standard for everyone. I don't pass judgment without facts. It's incredibly sad how little people care about the idea of fairness.
That's nonsense. We pass judgment all the time. When I interview people for an opening in my office, I consider not only qualifications and experience but also personality, appearance, how they express themselves, and how they might fit in with the team. Facts on a resume will only take you so far.
You aren't in a position to end a person's career with a shallow judgement call based on rumor and accusations with no proofto back them.
If you base your hiring practices on judgments such as the like you are displaying here, then....damn girl. Hold onto that job hard and heavy. I doubt those would work as qualifications for employment elsewhere.Lol, you and wilderness.
I'm sure you never, ever judge a politician who hasn't been proven guilty. Hillary, anyone? Hilarious!There is a body of evidence with Hillary. I've enjoyed watching you repeatedly deny that.
Give me a solid pieceof evidence against Kavanaugh. Some proof. Not a murky memory that I,frankly, can't believe without something to back it up.It changed from proven guilty to just needing a body of evidence. huh. But. as PrettyPanther already pointed out this isn't a trial.
Either way, my mind is not made up as to his guilt with Ford, but it is certainly made up that this guy is not SC material. Kavanuagh is a punk.Fair enough. Not wanting him on the Supreme Court is fine and understandable. As long as you don't convict him of a crime without evidence and only with the testimony of a woman who can't even get the details slightly clear in her mind.
As to Hillary. I don't know of many politicians we have had the benefit of a trial for their behavior. Hillary is little different. With career politicians we have little more than the body of evidence to go by.
I'm not advocating waiting until a trial is done for Kavanaugh. But, we do need at least one clear and believable piece of evidence. In the absence of that, those deciding he is guilty obviously have ulterior motives, or just blithely ignore the standards of fair play."In the absence of that, those deciding he is guilty obviously have ulterior motives"
Ya think?
Sounds reasonable. I just think HIllary was not guilty based on the evidence. This is what Comey explains in his book, and it all makes sense. That doesn't mean I was ever a Hillary fan. But, then again, if it were you or me, the evidence against Hillary likely would have been enough for a trial...the same goes for Trump.
I always think it's unfair how certain people get closed-door grand juries and the rest of us go straight to prosecution.
I believe Kavanaugh likely did something to Ford, and other women, based on the Senate hearing. However, I don't know for sure. I also am open to changing my mind about my belief on his guilt.
However, I will always think he doesn't have a SC disposition.I'm not certain what type of disposition one must have to join the Supreme Court but it is not unreasonable to simply not want someone appointed. He has been praised (prior to the circus) from both sides of the aisle. That carries weight, for me.
I have never, ever denied there is evidence against Hillary. Show me where I have or admit you're mischaracterizing my position. Besides, now you're flip-flipping on your own standard of "proven guilty" that you previously stated for Kavanaugh.
Feel free not to believe Professor Ford. It's typical.No. I don't believe Ford. Nor would I expect her to believe me, without some semblance of proof. I'm not an idiot, or emotionally challenged.
As to your other comment. I'm not trolling through all of your posts. I have a pretty good memory. I stand behind the comment.
As to guilt or innocence. I don't need a guilty verdict in a court of law. Ample evidence which points to guilt, yeh. That's needed,and woefully absent here."As to your other comment. I'm not trolling through all of your posts. I have a pretty good memory. I stand behind the comment."
i have a pretty good memory, too, not to mention a thorough understanding of my own beliefs, and I'm denying your unsubstantiated claims about me. I insist you provide corroborating evidence. If you can't, then you are obviously making $h!t up, aka lying.Kavanaugh by his testimony has revealed that he was guilty of the behavior that Dr. Ford spoke of. Kavanaugh revealed that he was emotional under pressure i.e. questioning. Kavanaugh is HIDING SOMETHING. If Kavanaugh was being truthful during the questioning, he wouldn't be so emotional-he would be more collected.
Wait. Kavanaugh was emotional and angry about the harm he and his family have suffered at the hands of Democrats playing political games and is therefore an attempted rapist?
That has to be some of the worst rationalization I've seen yet.You tell me off about quoting some fantasy quote that you commented on and then can't even step up to the plate and acknowledge your error? Talk about games
ED FISHER WROTE:
Interesting that not many here wonder about a fifteen year old girl and HER judgement of going to any kind of drinking parties ? 1965 75 or 85 , there are always two people who're at these parties , boys and girls and all of the drinking and sexual games that go with them , for all we know Prof. Ford is a" jilted ex-lover "with a guilty conscience about her promiscuous years .
Is Saturn really made of cheese?Uhhh...Look again. I replied to GmWilliams comment and quoted her. What does anything Ed Fisher posted have to do with it?
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/340 … ost4033879Dude, you directly replied to my statement about the Ed quote, something else
"Also where were you when statements like these were made " for all we know Prof. Ford is a" jilted ex-lover "with a guilty conscience about her promiscuous years."
While technically true (it IS possible, just like Saturn being made of green cheese is) I haven't seen anyone make that foolish statement. The equivalent about Kavanaugh, yes, but never about Ford; I assume one doesn't do that to a lady in tears, only men with emotions.
What forums do you frequent where such accusations are made about Ford? The ones with Democrats crawling through the mud looking for that "hardball"?
LOL. You want to see me emotional? Question my honor and integrity. That's about the only thing that gets my ire up. I think Kavanaugh acted about the way I would, if lied about and slandered.
LTL , excellent point , same here all anyone has to do with me is question my honor , honesty , integrity . It is SO ideologically divided at this point . Except for one point !
LIberals against Kavanaugh seem to have a lot in common with Prof. or Dr. Ford , their memories [political ] they have none !
Fairness pales beside the opportunity to get a liberal voting activist judge, making law from the bench.
Yup..If Obama had nominated this guy..his performance would have been crucified by the right for representing a weak-minded sniveling punk...which he really did seem to be.
Of course. we didn't even get to see Garland's disposition in front of Congress.
His response was that at 16-17 years of age, he did. I remember inventing words to describe things when I was a kid (heck, I still like doing it now) and once in a while, I found out that the word I chose for my description meant something else, and at times the discovery was embarrassing. This is what Kavanaugh was doing.
Oh I'm quite serious. Neither IslandBites nor hard sun had a child hood, seemingly.
I'll give you both an example. I've been using the word "pringle" for years to mean "jerk": That dude was being a pringle. Yet, here's the definition of that word: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pringle . It meaning has nothing to do with how I use the word. Now you go back and listen to Kavanaugh describe "boofing" and this is the scenario he seems to have painted. I mean, honestly, THIS is what the man said. Why you believe he's lying is beyond me. Oh wait, I KNOW WHY, silly me, because he's a conservative; otherwise you'd be bending over backwards to give him every conceivable break.
He didn't understand the correct meaning of "boofing" or "The Devil's Triangle."
He didn't pass out from drinking, he "went to sleep."
"Renate Alumnus" was meant as a sign of respect.
His angry, partisan tirade was justified because members of the judiciary committee are following up on allegations of misconduct, as is their job.
He drank beer in school, he still drinks beer, he likes beer, he really likes beer, do you like beer?
Have I covered it?Bending over backwards to give him every conceivable break?
Hi PP. Alright, he said these things, and you have a particular problem with them? I can address the passing out statement too. I drank a good deal in my 20's, and I'll tell you the same thing: I never "passed out" from drinking, but drinking a whole lot at one time makes me tired, so I did the same thing he claims to have done, I went to sleep. There is, really, a difference, and it seems he meant to be clear on that. In his shoes, I'd want to do the same thing.
You're right - my mind is made up that I liked his opening speech. The difference is that mine is NOT made up as to guilt in an alleged rape accusation, while yours is.
Producing a detailed time accounting of movements and activities in the period of the alleged rape is "pounding the table"? Sorry, that's called "facts". On the other hand asking "Why don't you join Democrats in playing their political games while harming you and your family" is pounding the table.
So where do you fall? Logic (he must have done it because he's a Trump nominee or because he is angry at political games harming his daughter), facts (a single person made an accusation that is unsupported by any of the witnesses present so he is guilty) or just pounding the table?
MizBejabbers, I suspect his temper tantrums were in regard to being persecuted for daring to accept the nomination. Any of us, ANY, would have gone completely off the rails many days ago, long before the day of Ford's testimony. Kavanaugh didn't go off the rails. Did he get testy? Yes. MIght I add of course?
It is true that Trump wants more presidential power.
Maybe this is why he approves of Kavanaugh.
Good gosh ... I still need some ice cream.Kathryn , You really need some of Ben And Jerry's ice cream , could I suggest 'Cherry Garcia" * ?
Never tried it ? You better , yet it could take several tastings you know , like a fine french wine !I've tried Cherry Garcia, and I can testify that it is delicious from the first bite. Like a fine French wine, it's a little rich for my pocketbook, so it is a rare treat for me. I highly recommend it to Kathryn. But if one prefers quantity over quality, Blue Bell's Milk Chocolate is economical and satisfies the lust for both ice cream and chocolate.
That sounds old-fashioned: Blue Bell's Milk Chocolate! Never heard of it.
I'll try to find it.
Yumm. ... I will go get some right this minute. I've always wondered.
Tech-trivia Regarding the Internet and the Grateful Dead/Deadheads:
"Beyond purchasing archival albums and recordings of concerts that ended just hours before (though ticket-holders often get a free download these days), Deadheads were almost unquestionably the first fanbase to rush to their computer screens to analyze the event after it was over. These days they’re right there on Facebook and Twitter and Snapchat of course, but before that they were using mailing lists, back channel chats, and The WELL, the Whole Earth BBS spin-off which is celebrating its 30th anniversary this year. Obsessively networked fans from flash-mobbing Beliebers to PBR-chugging Juggalos are now so common as to be passé, and they’re all just following a path blazed by the Dead and the 'heads. When the band seemed under-rehearsed at their Santa Clara unveiling, online chatter exploded. Along with the performing musicians and the good-vibed dancers in the crowd, both the residual onstage confusion and the endless online analysis mark these shows as the authentic Grateful Dead experience."
https://www.wired.com/2015/07/grateful- … -pioneers/
I don't think constitutional interpretation can be fairly relegated to left or right. It's a delicate balance, following the intent of the framers and the evolution of the society it guides.
I would venture to guess,after this dog and pony show, Kavanaugh will certainly bear ill will toward the left. I would. Smearing my good name would leave a foul taste. Forever. I've not seen back stabbing grand standing such as this since I left a corporate office job in disgust.Hopefully Kavanaugh will apply his ill will (and you're right - it will be there) to the individuals doing the deed and not to the underlying philosophy of the entire liberal community. I'd hate to see him leave his judgement behind and vote hate rather than law. The country doesn't need more partisanship regardless of how badly they've been treated.
After watching his opening remarks and the way he tore into the Democratic members for their malfeasance without regard to being PC or statesmanlike I think we need to boot Trump out of office and replace him with Kavanaugh. We NEED people like that; people to whom being PC and tiptoeing around while never actually saying what is meant doesn't mean as much as leaving no doubt behind as to the actual stance being taken.
Related Discussions
- 107
Judge Kavanaugh Confirmation Hearing - DAY 1
by Ralph Schwartz 4 years ago
Today is the first day of confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice nominee, Brett Kavanaugh - and it's already a wild and crazy ride. At this early point in the hearing, reports are that 17 people have been removed for disrupting the proceedings, several Democrats forcibly interrupted...
- 26
Justice Amy Coney Barret's Confirmation
by ga anderson 23 months ago
If you, (can), put aside all the political charges and machinations against her nomination, what is your opinion of the qualifications of our newest Supreme Court Justice? I think she is exactly the kind of person we should want to sit on our Supreme Court.To be clear, I strongly support her...
- 52
Do You Support Increasing the Size of the Supreme Court?
by Ralph Schwartz 3 years ago
Following the confirmation of Justice Kavanaugh, some Democratic groups are how debating a new tactic; pushing a scheme to "balance" the court by adding more seats (which they hope to fill will Liberal Judges).Additionally, Democrat think-tanks are proposing to end the lifetime tenure of...
- 437
Will Shocking Allegations About Brett Kavanaughs Past Doom Him?
by JAKE Earthshine 3 years ago
*Public Domain*is it true and should cowardly complicit republicans agree to investigate the claims to find out? Of course they should but they probably won't, just like they've refused to live up to their oaths of office: In a normal, functioning American society which we are unfortunately light...
- 90
What is going on with the Chief Justice John Roberts?
by Jack Lee 2 years ago
This latest 5/4 Supreme Court decision on DACA is inexplicable. John Roberts, as Chief Justice should know better. This is a series of miss steps by John Roberts ever since the decision on the ACA. Why is this happening to our high courts? It was John Roberts who claim there is no politics in the...
- 37
The case why I am compelled to vote against the GOP/Conservatives
by Credence2 23 months ago
A great article that speaks for me and my opinion regarding the aforementioned topic in the Atlantic. How much of it concurs with your own?https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi … te/616808/Patience, it could be seen as a long read.Your thoughts, please.