TP Posted October 6, 2018 Share Posted October 6, 2018 18 hours ago, Burgold said: Senator Collins to all victims of sexual assault: We do not believe you and if we pretend to believe you we will not support or defend you. So unfair to say that. I though her speech was outstanding. Libs think that every woman who claims sexual assault should be believed whereas Conservatives think that women who claim sexual assault should be believed if there is evidence to support them but always with presumption of innocence for the accused. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearrock Posted October 6, 2018 Share Posted October 6, 2018 Kavanaugh lied during his confirmation hearing. That really should be the end of it. The fact that many of the lies were about trivialities makes it that much worse in my view. 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted October 6, 2018 Share Posted October 6, 2018 13 minutes ago, NoCalMike said: True, but the criticism of Ford is ironic because on one hand, the detractors were saying "This was 30 years ago, how is it even possible she could remember this stuff" then any time inconsistency about the story (which was really irrelevant to the alleged assault itself) they would say "seeeee she is a liar" So you kind of can't have it both ways. Either it is hard to remember tiny details from 30 years ago or it isn't. Some of the testimony, for sure. But nobody on the left is going down the items on Mitchell's report and excusing them if Kavanaugh had been the subject. A partisan lens is exactly the opposite of what we should be using when watching a hearing that's trying to uncover the truth about a claim. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 6, 2018 Share Posted October 6, 2018 The OnionVerified account @TheOnion 21h21 hours ago More Senator Feinstein Wondering If Now A Good Time To Disclose 7 Highly Credible Murder Allegations Against Kavanaugh She Received Weeks Ago https://trib.al/x5DXET7 1 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TP Posted October 6, 2018 Share Posted October 6, 2018 16 hours ago, bearrock said: Are people celebrating because they feel like their side won or because they feel like they confirmed the best conservative jurist they could find? And vice versa for the unhappy side? That probably gives you the answers to the questions in your second paragraph. 14 hours ago, bearrock said: Is there any jurist who would say Constitution doesn't mean what it says? The question is what does it exactly say? You think it's a simple straight forward question? Explain what due process clause means and exactly what is required before taking of life, liberty, or property is permitted? Does due process clause appply to natural persons only or does it also apply to legally created entities? How do you define speedy trial? Should criminal defendants have Miranda rights, why or why not? Should fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine exist, why or why not? How do you define cruel and unusual punishment? What is the implication of the ninth amendment when it comes to unenumerated rights? Should an ideal supreme court justice be a textualist, an originalist, or a strict constructionist? Has the average GOP supporter even pondered these questions and their potential implications? For that matter have Dems? Or is this win one for the good guys mentality going around? Judicial Activism. Get to know it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted October 6, 2018 Share Posted October 6, 2018 3 hours ago, Burgold said: He is temperamentally unsuitable. He can't be dispassionate or a fair arbiter of facts. He is an unrepentant liar of big facts and small. He perjures under oath repeatedly. He has been brainwashed by conservative conspiracies. Would have been nice if the ABA would have decided these things before the nomination. When he was a federal judge. 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted October 6, 2018 Share Posted October 6, 2018 31 minutes ago, grego said: Some of the testimony, for sure. But nobody on the left is going down the items on Mitchell's report and excusing them if Kavanaugh had been the subject. A partisan lens is exactly the opposite of what we should be using when watching a hearing that's trying to uncover the truth about a claim. Again though, I think people are looking at the situation overall incorrectly. This wasn't a sexual assault trial in essence. Sure, that was what he was being accused of, but his testimony and the way he acted, which includes lying, the temperament, shameless partisanship? That should have been enough for people across both aisles to take a step back and ask "Is this really the right guy for this job?" That is what is being lost in all of this. Yes, it is important to know if the sexual assault actually took place or not at the hands of Kavanaugh, but because this was a job interview and not a criminal trial, it also matters how Kavanaugh was acting during his testimony. Everyone seems to be throwing all of that out because, "FBI said not enough evidence of assault" 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted October 6, 2018 Share Posted October 6, 2018 30 minutes ago, TP said: Judicial Activism. Get to know it. This is an impressively weak response to his post. Did you just reach into a right wing meme grab bag and blurt the first thing you pulled out of it? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearrock Posted October 6, 2018 Share Posted October 6, 2018 26 minutes ago, TP said: Judicial Activism. Get to know it. Ah yes, somehow during my three years of law school and more than a decade as a practicing attorney, that term has escaped my attention. What hasn't escaped my attention is your total inability to answer my question with a scintilla of intellectual thought. Explain how any one of the dominant conservative theory of constitutional interpretation manages to reveal to us exactly what the Constitution says without controversy. You can start by interpreting the Constitutional clauses and justifying or discrediting the doctrines I mentioned in my post. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 6, 2018 Share Posted October 6, 2018 Kav was criticized in the press for not being emotional to accusations, before he was criticized for being too emotional. tough crowd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted October 6, 2018 Share Posted October 6, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted October 6, 2018 Share Posted October 6, 2018 46 minutes ago, TP said: Judicial Activism. Get to know it. Yet you hate it when centrist and liberal judges use judicial activism. If Roe is overturned, women will endure forced pregnancy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fresh8686 Posted October 6, 2018 Share Posted October 6, 2018 10 minutes ago, twa said: Kav was criticized in the press for not being emotional to accusations, before he was criticized for being too emotional. tough crowd It's not that tough to be balanced and self-restrained while also emoting with authenticity in such a way that your humanity and character is properly displayed. Well, it's not that tough if that's actually who you are and have lived. But, if you're trying to fake it... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted October 6, 2018 Share Posted October 6, 2018 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted October 6, 2018 Share Posted October 6, 2018 24 minutes ago, twa said: Kav was criticized in the press for not being emotional to accusations, before he was criticized for being too emotional. tough crowd Sounds like the kind of tightrope women have to walk often. Cool and collected? You're aloof and a cold fish. Emotional about something? You're an overemotional hysterical female and your concerns can safely be ignored. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted October 6, 2018 Share Posted October 6, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted October 6, 2018 Share Posted October 6, 2018 (edited) Harkening back to something Kavanaugh said in his opening statement, can one of the lawyers here tell us which Supreme Court Case established the doctrine of “What goes around comes around.”? Because otherwise that sounds like some immature playground bull****, not something that would come out of the mouth of a Supreme Court nominee in sworn testimony before Congress. Edited October 6, 2018 by Dan T. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted October 6, 2018 Author Share Posted October 6, 2018 2 hours ago, TP said: So unfair to say that. I though her speech was outstanding. Libs think that every woman who claims sexual assault should be believed whereas Conservatives think that women who claim sexual assault should be believed if there is evidence to support them but always with presumption of innocence for the accused. It's entirely fair. Look at what happened to Blasey Ford in practical, real world terms. She was forced to flee her home Blasey Ford is repeatedly threatened including additional threats of future sexual attack. She is called a liar by you and others The GOP hired a prosecutor to interrogate her during her testimony and acted as a defense team for Kavanaugh. The President of the United States open mocks and humiliates her Senator Collins implies that she's a liar and nothing can be done, will be done, or should be done. What hope or heart should any woman who has suffered an attack take from the events of the past weeks? She is in almost every way worse off than if she had never come forward. The moral of the story is you may be listened to, you may be patronized, but nothing will be done and then those in position to defend you or investigate to learn the truth will betray you, laugh at you, and attack you. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 6, 2018 Share Posted October 6, 2018 Andy McCarthyVerified account @AndrewCMcCarthy 2h2 hours ago More I had no problem with #Kavanaugh temperament when he was being attacked, but even if I had, he was not a judge in that context. He was a witness (and nearly in posture of an accused). If you want to evaluate judicial temperament, you have to look at his 12 years as a judge. 260 replies2,198 retweets6,828 likes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted October 6, 2018 Share Posted October 6, 2018 Our system is broken and we need to change a lot by Amendment because it's only going to get worse. This is how America dies, at the hands of a flailing minority. 9 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted October 6, 2018 Share Posted October 6, 2018 4 hours ago, TP said: We judge by the evidence and there was none in this case....none! Like Michael Che said on SNL: If he even might have, he's unqualified. Straight up, no way around it...now, get back down on your low horse & ride off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted October 6, 2018 Share Posted October 6, 2018 2 minutes ago, skinsmarydu said: Like Michael Che said on SNL: If he even might have, he's unqualified. Straight up, no way around it...now, get back down on your low horse & ride off. It's not even that. It's that there was a concerted effort to keep evidence from coming to light. Trump ordered the FBI to keep the scope too narrow to actually uncover anything. Kavanaugh's people apparently were reaching out to others and trying to keep them from coming forward when allegations came out. The former is a disgrace, but the latter is just unbelievable and totally disqualifying. If you called friends prior to a background check and told them "don't tell the FBI about all the drugs and thefts I committed in college" and then it was discovered you did that, pretty sure there would be no callback from that interview. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ixcuincle Posted October 6, 2018 Share Posted October 6, 2018 people keep yelling in the gallery lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted October 6, 2018 Share Posted October 6, 2018 And there you have it. It was a crazy turning road, but in the end it was exactly what we thought it would be. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted October 6, 2018 Author Share Posted October 6, 2018 I guess the only hope now is that the other Justices force Kavanaugh to recuse himself on any matter that requires judgement since he has shown himself so unfit on those grounds. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now