kavanaugh

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

SCOTUS justices are allowed to have the same prejudices and biases as any other human being, as long as the leave them at the door when they put their robes on. Ginsberg and Sotomayor don’t show bias in their personal lives?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's my main point, not only did he not leave them at the door, he acted like Trump had possessed his body. Keep in mind he's interviewing for the job, so that angry rant was so wrong for the job he was applying for. I'm not stupid guys, everyone has the right to have a political party and express their leaning towards the left or right, but the decisions at the highest level are never or should never be made based on what their party would want to see.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

That's my main point, not only did he not leave them at the door, he acted like Trump had possessed his body. Keep in mind he's interviewing for the job, so that angry rant was so wrong for the job he was applying for. I'm not stupid guys, everyone has the right to have a political party and express their leaning towards the left or right, but the decisions at the highest level are never or should never be made based on what their party would want to see.

this is a joke right?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

That's my main point, not only did he not leave them at the door, he acted like Trump had possessed his body. Keep in mind he's interviewing for the job, so that angry rant was so wrong for the job he was applying for. I'm not stupid guys, everyone has the right to have a political party and express their leaning towards the left or right, but the decisions at the highest level are never or should never be made based on what their party would want to see.

His "angry rant," as you characterize it, was not a lie. It was not a judicial interpretation. It was not a legal judgment. It was defending himself against those who are trying to destroy him. The whole charade, as Lindsey Graham rightly called what the Dems were doing, was a politicized attempt to stop Kavanaugh and hold off the nomination until after the midterms. Professor Fords accusation should not have been part of the procedures without being substantiated first. The idea that an unsubstantiated, uncorroborated charge should be used to stop the procedure, and then to delay and delay and delay it, should be, and is, permissible to anyone, including judges, to call it out. Defending yourself against your accusers and those who wish to stop you in a job interview does not disqualify a judge from telling the truth.

It would be unconscionable of a SCOTUS Justice to withhold the truth simply to be politically correct.

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by detbuch

His "angry rant," as you characterize it, was not a lie. It was not a judicial interpretation. It was not a legal judgment. It was defending himself against those who are trying to destroy him. The whole charade, as Lindsey Graham rightly called what the Dems were doing, was a politicized attempt to stop Kavanaugh and hold off the nomination until after the midterms. Professor Fords accusation should not have been part of the procedures without being substantiated first. The idea that an unsubstantiated, uncorroborated charge should be used to stop the procedure, and then to delay and delay and delay it, should be, and is, permissible to anyone, including judges, to call it out. Defending yourself against your accusers and those who wish to stop you in a job interview does not disqualify a judge from telling the truth.

It would be unconscionable of a SCOTUS Justice to withhold the truth simply to be politically correct.

I guess my bulb is diming, but I know you will help set me straight as you always do and I’m always so grateful for the endless wisdom you selflessly share.

If I wanted to derail this nomination and wanted to pick the perfect time to leak the letter, would I not want to do this early on, so as to not risk the GOP controlled senate the opportunity to ram it threw? Had they done so, it more than likely would have meant a far more in depth FBI investigation, than one afforded to them in a short week.

If Flake hadn’t made that last minute move, the vote would have been a done deal more than likely. Again I’m only a dim 60 watt bulb and I’m certain your 150 watt brilliance will shed some light on this dem or Clinton conspiracy plan the was launched at the last minute.

By now if the FBI had weeks and weeks and proof was forthcoming, than the outcome would have been a rest and new pick and nobody seated before the mid terms.

Oh my I’m so confused!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

If I wanted to derail this nomination and wanted to pick the perfect time to leak the letter, would I not want to do this early on, so as to not risk the GOP controlled senate the opportunity to ram it threw? Had they done so, it more than likely would have meant a far more in depth FBI investigation, than one afforded to them in a short week.

The letter should not have been leaked. It was submitted with the understanding that it wouldn't be. It was a lie to leak it. But that is supposed to be OK. Only if Kavanaugh lies does it matter. Some lies are, apparently, more honest than others.

The "perfect time" to release it, would be when it is verified, corroborated. Otherwise, it is no more useful than a lie.

Making the letter public stirs up the expected rabid media and negative public reaction based on mere accusation without verification. These are the very things that should not be part of deliberations seeking actual facts and records regarding the verifiable qualifications of someone you wish to hire.

There are many reasons for dysfunctional government. Allowing this method of jaccuse to become standard procedure in hearings, campaigns, choosing political appointees, will only make government process more dysfunctional than it already is.

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The letter should not have been leaked. It was submitted with the understanding that it wouldn't be. It was a lie to leak it. But that is supposed to be OK. Only if Kavanaugh lies does it matter. Some lies are, apparently, more honest than others.

The "perfect time" to release it, would be when it is verified, corroborated. Otherwise, it is no more useful than a lie.

Making the letter public stirs up the expected rabid media and negative public reaction based on mere accusation without verification. These are the very things that should not be part of deliberations seeking actual facts and records regarding the verifiable qualifications of someone you wish to hire.

There are many reasons for dysfunctional government. Allowing this method of jaccuse to become standard procedure in hearings, campaigns, choosing political appointees, will only make government process more dysfunctional than it already is.

I’m disappointed, I was hoping for the explanation as to why the supposed ploy by the evil dems to delay, delay and delay involved such a late leak of the letter.

All you did was tell me what I already knew, that this poor women’s trust was betrayed by some (not a well coordinated dem-Clinton conspiracy) person who felt getting that information out there was more important.

One staffer likely thinking that was needed to prevent someone accused of attempted rape being confirmed to the highest post in our legal system is probably what happened. So tell me, you buying into his rant claiming that conspiracy is real and that happened, because you seemed to believe so and if so I’d refer you back to me previous post. Also, since we are in agreement (OMG mark the calendar) the letter release was wrong and that now we have an FBI investigation under way, does you opinion of the man change if they come back with enough to support her claim? Or does the actions of a beer drinking party crazed 17 year old not matter when we appoint someone to the highest court in the land; maybe not but would lying about it to the senate sway your vote?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

I’m disappointed, I was hoping for the explanation as to why the supposed ploy by the evil dems to delay, delay and delay involved such a late leak of the letter.

If Ford's letter was vetted when it was received, the matter, if it was going to involve the FBI, could have been resolved already. If an investigation proved Kavanaugh unfit, Kavanaugh's nomination could have been withdrawn, and a new nomination could have been made and the Senate's deliberations could have been done before the midterm elections. Time is possibly too short for that to happen now, especially if the Dems demand a further expansion of the FBI investigation. If the Dems win the Senate, then they can stop any further nominations. That's one explanation.

All you did was tell me what I already knew, that this poor women’s trust was betrayed by some (not a well coordinated dem-Clinton conspiracy) person who felt getting that information out there was more important.

One staffer likely thinking that was needed to prevent someone accused of attempted rape being confirmed to the highest post in our legal system is probably what happened. So tell me, you buying into his rant claiming that conspiracy is real and that happened, because you seemed to believe so and if so I’d refer you back to me previous post.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If that staffer was really motivated by some idea of justice, not politics, why would he/she/it believe it was right to expose, against the writer's wishes, a confused, uncorroborated statement which could destroy lives, including the accuser's as well as the judge's and his family?

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by detbuch

If that staffer was really motivated by some idea of justice, not politics, why would he/she/it believe it was right to expose, against the writer's wishes, a confused, uncorroborated statement which could destroy lives, including the accuser's as well as the judge's and his family?

See now there you go, telling me what I know, what you know and not answering either of my questions. I know the difference between right and wrong, I've already agreed the release against her will was wrong; you can give that a rest now.

You seemed to be agreeing with K's rant and the GOP position that this entire process was a staged and calculated ploy by the Dem's and if we can believe it Clinton's revenge. I see it as maybe a simple case of one staffer leaking a letter that they probably in hindsight, shouldn't have even had access to, yet that water is over the dam and down river.

So I wanted clarification from you on why you think this was all a calculated ploy to leak a letter last minute, in order to stall the confirmation and affect the mid terms. I made the case, that if that's a plan, it's not a very well thought out one; an early release and early detailed FBI probe would have been far more effective at doing just that.

Then in my last post and since the cat is out of the bag, with an FBI investigation underway; I asked if they presented evidence to support her claim, would that change your opinion of the man or his right I guess to win confirmation.

I guess I'm looking to see if that were to happen, if him lying about the incident would sway your vote, or do you feel is it just a stupid 17 year old getting too liquored up and acting inappropriate and we should move on.