• (Opinion) How Brett Kavanaugh could harm the legitimacy of the Supreme Court
    179 replies, posted
But you clearly believe some sort of conspiracy is at play, even if it's just Ford alone. Again I'll ask, why not Gorsuch?
They both went to Georgetown prep, went to Ivy League schools, clerked for Anthony Kennedy, and have been seen together several times, I don't see why it wasn't done to Gorsuch.
Being part of a political party is not the same as being nakedly partisan and screaming about a conspiracy by the Clintons as revenge for Kavanaugh working under Ken Starr to investigate Clinton in hopes of impeaching him, you dishrack. Why do I even need to explain this to you? I dislike Neil Gorsuch, more because he was nominated by Trump after McConnell dicked Merrick Garland over for a year just to fuck with Obama and keep the court from swinging any further left than the dude himself, but I'd gladly trade a clone of him for Kavanaugh because he's only somewhat at risk of slamming the door shut on critical precedents like can the President pardon state charges, .can the President be investigated in any capacity or is his immunity from criminal prosecution (not the same as investigation) actually total immunity, and reversing Roe v Wade and driving abortions back into the alley with a coathanger and down goes womens' health.
Sounds like all the democrats in this thread. I know it may shock you but I am not republican, I have actually voted either as a Dem or as neither. I assume you mean republicans which clearly isn't true considering it's Liberals freaking out at everything which has likely been the cause of their major losses over the last few years. As for the perjury I would like you to list them directly. Though again, making a fake claim and using how a person reacts to it as evidence that he shouldn't be a judge will only encourage more fake claims, you know that right?
https://twitter.com/SenSanders/status/1046085712372813824 Thread of the list as of the time. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/28/heres-where-kavanaughs-sworn-testimony-was-misleading-or-wrong/?tid=pm_pop Here you go.
I already said, he could be right or wrong, that doesn't matter in this case. Maybe come up with an actual good reason why he shouldn't be judge.
"But you clearly believe some sort of conspiracy is at play, even if it's just Ford alone. Again I'll ask, why not Gorsuch?" "I think someone lied about getting sexually assaulted and my belief turned out to be true." I hate to be rude but that's a question dodge worthy of Kavanaugh
legit, if the accusation was in the end fake, I can accept that. Of course, he refused to have an investigation into the matter, and the one that was made was such a short and stunted farce that it was a joke, barely allowed to interview anyone relevant. its like searching for a murder suspect but only being allowed to investigate the neighbors house from where the murder took place. but lets toss that aside for a second. The fact of the matter is he acted like a partisan ass in his "job interview." He is clearly unfit. and in as so far as you claiming that we should just rid of all judges with a party, you are missing the point. I am a liberal, but I don't really care if a supreme court judge is a bit on the left or right. All I care is that when it comes to it, they can put their biases aside, and focus on the cases before them. And I believe someone who believes that any criticism against him is a liberal conspiracy from hillary clinton, should not get that role. There are plenty of neutral, liberal, and yes, even conservative judges I wouldnt mind having, because they would be mature and would treat the position with honor. The only reason this wreck was chosen is because he outright said that the executive branch should be safe from prosecution, something the current president really wants considering the Muller investigation. And if you can't see the fact that the only reason this "I like beer" guy is being shoved through the court, even when previous sureme court judges say its a bad idea, is because the current GOP wants to unbalance the checks and balances system to their favor, then I am not sure what to say.
I'll give you credit Metist, at least you are intellectually consistent. I have no problem believing that if a Democratic president and a Democratic Congress forced through thoroughly prejudicial judges to rubber stamp a liberal/progressive agenda, you would have no problem with it. You don't seem like one of those people we had here who said that Garland shouldn't be nominated because it would have unbalanced the Supreme Court in favor of liberals but then didn't say a peep during the entire Kavanaugh process. Ah the ol' "it's liberals fault that conservatives are bad people".
Just as I thought, all conjecture or He said She said and if we want to take that as proof then you might as well have locked him away anyways. I could be wrong and it could be later proven that he was telling lies but as of right now you can't prove he was.
The fact that he vowed partisan revenge on the Democrats as part of his conspiracy theory matters a whole fucking lot and if you don't understand why or disagree you're flatly wrong and ignorant because it's been explained to you on the previous page. Are you illiterate or just in way over your head? I'm not flaming, I genuinely need to know where the problem is.
His incredibly partisan nature and veiled threats against the Democrats will taint every 5-4 decision the court makes where he rules in the affirmative. The Supreme Court isn't Burger King. It's not Kroger. We aren't going for the bare minimum here. There were a half dozen names on the Heritage Foundations list that were at least as qualified as Kavanaugh, if not more, and had the bonus of not having numerous credible sexual assault allegations against them. He shouldn't be a judge because, even if we are looking strictly at far-right conservative nominees, there were better options.
It’s hard to judge how detailed the attendee lists presented on Kavanaugh’s calendar are, but on multiple occasions he refers to parties in the abstract or to events that he acknowledged included people beyond those mentioned. (An example: When he’d go lift weights at a friend’s house.) > “My friends and I sometimes got together and had parties on weekends. The drinking age was 18 in Maryland for most of my time in high school, and was 18 in D.C. for all of my time in high school. I drank beer with my friends.” Kavanaugh is being misleading. The drinking age in Maryland was 18 when Kavanaugh was a freshman, sophomore and junior in high school — when he was 15, 16 and 17 years old. In the summer of 1982 — on July 1, in fact — it was increased to 21, but those who were already 18 were grandfathered in. Kavanaugh turned 18 in 1983. At other points in his testimony, he claimed that seniors could drink legally when he was in high school. That was true — until he was a senior. I want you to explain to me exactly where in this quote there is conjecture as opposed to statements of fact. Because I'm genuinely wondering if you're illiterate or just not reading on purpose because you're not here to argue in good faith.
out of curiosity, tossing out the rape accusation itself, can you comment on any other points we made in this thread? particularly about his behavior relative to what is expected out of a supreme court judge?
The woman(en) lied about being sexually assaulted, this has basically been proven. Do you truly believe conservatives are bad people? Get to know people, it speaks ignorance if you think HALF of the country is "bad people". You are right, I can't prove that he didn't rape those women, but given that he was found innocent and since he wasn't found guilty, I must assume he is innocent meaning I must assume the claims against him were false.
People point to a lot of things fucked up about American politics but here we have someone stridently arguing in favor of a Supreme Court justice who can't handle tough questions without pitching a temper tantrum, concocts wild conspiracy theories about his political opposition, and promises future vengeance. So what happens when the pendulum swings left and the Democrats do this and the Supreme Court just becomes a joke? Is it going to be worth it because /our guy/ helped repeal Roe v Wade? He has said that nothing Kavanaugh did during his testimony was unreasonable compared to past justices, which is yet another extraordinary claim left unproven.
Back up when were the allegations proven false?
Hey whoops guess who said that? https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/10/09/trump-said-kavanaugh-was-proven-innocent-he-wasnt/
I did multiple times. His actions in court are reasonable given what he was going through. I too would be upset if I was falsely accused of rape, if my history was being put on the line. Misleading is not the same as telling lies. I know you might not like it but he did not break any laws. Again, by wanting to use such a court case as a way to stop an innocent man from gaining his position than you will only encourage more attempts against more people. Do you honestly want to go through this again every couple of years?
I mean, I was oversimplifying but this is clearly a deflection from my point that saying that the Republicans running the country into the ground is the fault of liberals. This seems self-evident to me. This is pure sophistry. Not to mention the fact that he wasn't "found innocent", he wasn't under trial of anything. Stop deflecting and answer the question: How do we know Ford lied?
Maybe if other past judges went through such court cases. You are assuming all other judges are perfect angels but you can't actually know this given no other judge had to go through the same situation. But given how this scheme may have worked maybe we will get to see how other judges react to such a situation, expect each new judge to have to face the same BS.
Put those goalposts right the fuck back where I left them and answer my question instead of dodging it with a strawman. Your post has literally nothing to do with the post you're responding to. You argued that all of the accusations were wispy allegations and baseless conjecture and not solid fact. I quoted solid fact that Kavanaugh was less than candid about his teenage drinking habits while under oath, the journalist quoting him directly and then stating the drinking age in Maryland and how it changed when he was 17, and challenged you to explain how this is merely conjecture. You don't get to run away from this if you want anyone to treat you with a shred of credibility.
Maybe Republicans should stop putting forward people who end up being sexual predators. They did it with Gorsuch so clearly it can't be that hard.
So kavanaugh claiming he never attended parties or related social circles, despite being proven false by calendars that he handed over to the court himself, is "he said she said conjecture", but ford is a proven liar somehow because her claims were denied a proper investigation? Did you even read what he linked you?
He obviously didn't. I'd be surprised if he skimmed it. What's with the people whining about how debate is dead on FP then putting in absolutely zero effort
you are dodging so much that I could put you on a sports team. The woman(en) lied about being sexually assaulted, this has basically been proven. What source for this? The investigation itself was horribly shunted due to its really limited time and scope, so i wouldnt use that. though to be honest, I dont think such a case could be solved this many years after, there wouldnt be any hard evidence. our point is that is irrelevant since his behavior itself should disqualify him. Do you truly believe conservatives are bad people? Get to know people, it speaks ignorance if you think HALF of the country is "bad people". This is not he meant. BTW, while it is a point I do see many on facepunch not be clear on, the american modern GOP is not really "conservative." I mean the president right now cheated and remarried how many times? this is the party of family values? Personally I blame fox news and certain other sites for misrepresenting the news and not telling people whats going on. However, unfortunately, there are those who go beyond this misinformation/simple ignorance and just go full on hate. people supporting the separation of children from their parents and the border, and waving away the fact that thousands of kids are "lost" is awful, and the fact that such a large segment of the GOP voting base is fine with it should still ring alarm bells You are right, I can't prove that he didn't rape those women, but given that he was found innocent and since he wasn't found guilty, I must assume he is innocent meaning I must assume the claims against him were false. "Innocent until proven guilty" is the phrase you are looking for. A motto of our justice system. Except, once again, this wasnt a court trial, this was a job interview. And his management of the whole situation should have disqualified him from the position. so how many times are we going to repeat this to you?
The country is not being run into the ground, our country is still one of the best in the world, you not liking specific policies doesn't change this. You are correct, it was treated as one though. I call it a court case because they were were trying to figure out if he was guilty of such a crime. Of course given that there was basically no evidence of his crime this didn't actually go to an actual court case but instead everyone's time was wasted in a mock one. I wish it were a real one because then it would have just been thrown out do to lack of evidence.
there is "upset" then there is "the democrats are plotting a scheme! hillary!" if this is enough to make you break, alright. rape accusations are serious. but if you cant keep your cool in this stressful situation, what makes me think you can handle court cases, on the regular, which will determine the course of history for this country?
No, they were trying to see if he should be eligable for a job. Even after several accusers came forward. The fbi "investigation" was a joke
Good thing he isn't or at least there is no proof that he was. Calling a man who was found innocent a sexual predator only shows how biased you are. He wasn't proven false, that was more conjecture. Even if you think it is good evidence it isn't in itself proof. I actually did read it, how can you claim debate is dead while you are the one claiming a man is a sexual predator with no proof. Yet he wasn't provably telling lies.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.