[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

this seems to have fallen on deaf ears

No it hasn't. It was very well publicized. Anyone paying attention to mainstream news or other sources is aware of what Stevens said. Which already had been, and was being, said by others before Stevens. The fact he served on the Court does not give him the authority or credentials to say who is fit to serve. That is left up to Congress to decide. He can have his say, but it is just an opinion which repeats that of others. And there are many others who disagree with him.

Justice Stevens said he came to the conclusion reluctantly, changing his mind about Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination after the second round of the judge’s confirmation hearings last week. Judge Kavanaugh’s statements at those hearings, Justice Stevens said, revealed prejudices that would make it impossible for him to do the court’s work, a point he said had been made by prominent commentators.

“They suggest that he has demonstrated a potential bias involving enough potential litigants before the court that he would not be able to perform his full responsibilities,”

I said i never thought what may have happened in highschool should define him and his life's work

But his opening statement clearly exposed what was hidden behind the facade

So he agrees that the BS which the hearing was about should not define K and his life's work. And he had thought that K's life work up till the hearing qualified him to serve.

But he "interpreted" K's opening statement as contradicting his previous life's work, and as the real clue that would define him as a judge. Why K's 12 years of decisions as a Judge on the D.C. Circuit Court does not reveal his "biases," but an accurate statement about what the Dems were doing to him, reveals a bias that never showed itself in his decisions, nor how truth is a bias, is strange.

Now you may quibble as to the veracity of K's opening remarks. But then you may be going against your notion of personal interpretations being a legitimate means of making judicial decisions.

Somehow, you assume that once becoming a judge, it's perfectly fine to interpret what is truth. But for the rest of us, we must depend on an ex judge to tell us what we must think about the veracity of K's remarks. Many of us, including prominent members of the Senate committee, believe that what K said is true. There certainly are no corroborating facts to disprove our belief. The facts mostly favor our opinion. So forgive us for not being persuaded by Stevens' opinion.

yet those who complain about “Legislating from the Bench” Judicial activism' have or will seat a justice who will forever be tainted will a partistan Halo he himself revealed to the country and placed proudly on his own head.. go figure

Negative comments about legislating from the bench by a judge who did his fair share of judicial activism and who has recently called for the repeal of the Second Amendment are not to be taken seriously. Kavanaugh's judicial record and his statements about what a judge is do not foreshadow the kind of Progressive jurisprudence that has existed on the Court for years and is exemplified by the three women and Breyer who are now serving, and who all show a strong bias toward judicial activism. Has Stevens spoken about their fitness for being a SCOTUS Justice? I suspect K will be less partisan than them. I may be wrong, but that is my opinion--regardless of your opinion that Stevens' remarks seem to have fallen on deaf ears.