Kragar Posted September 28, 2018 Share Posted September 28, 2018 12 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said: Personally, I don't think that SCOTUS appointments should be for life. They should come up fro review after a certain period of time. 4 years seems to short an interval. I'd suggest 8 years. Agree with the bolded. Not sure on what the length of term, but some kind of limits should be in place, if only to protect against judges staying on for political reasons over health/mental competency issues. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HerrDrFunk Posted September 28, 2018 Share Posted September 28, 2018 9 minutes ago, Kragar said: Agree with the bolded. Not sure on what the length of term, but some kind of limits should be in place, if only to protect against judges staying on for political reasons over health/mental competency issues. According to former clerks for justices, that's a huge issue that no one wants to address. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneSeventeen Posted September 28, 2018 Author Share Posted September 28, 2018 34 minutes ago, Blue Jay 22 said: Just curious, what would you change about the current process in place? For context, I am an American that considers myself a moderate Conservative (I typically lean right on policy issues while left on social issues, but also think the term Libertarian is a cop out, lol) so I'm always curious what outsiders think about our process. Oh cool that you're a Canucks fan! I'm just an undergrad student double majoring in law and cognitive science, so if anyone has any corrections to add to the following please do so. Here's my answer to your question: I know Trudeau gets a lot of hate here (and deservedly so these days) but his overhaul of the Canadian judicial appointment process was democratic, smart and necessary. He has made the nominating process more transparent and non-partisan by having an advisory board create the shortlist from which he selects. The board chair is former PM Kim Campbell but the other chairs are from the Canadian Judicial Council, the Canadian Bar Association, the Federation of Law Societies and the Council of Canadian Law Deans, The other three chairs are outside the legal community. The candidates that the board considers must also have been part of a provincial law society for 10 years or served as a judge. The candidate is chosen by the PM and is then questioned by members of appropriate committees in the House of Commons and the Senate. In a nutshell, Canada has qualified people choosing from a pool of experienced jurists and practicing lawyers. In contrast to the US where the President chooses from a shortlist made by insiders or basically whoever he wants, there really isn't a formal process as to who gets nominated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted September 28, 2018 Share Posted September 28, 2018 1 hour ago, PhillipBlunt said: I agree. And I hope courts are staffed by those who contend to serve the greater good of everyone. The court of public opinion is one that requires nothing more than an internet connection and an opinion. That should never decide a person's fate. I think where it does have some legitimacy in this case tho is judging how Kavanaugh handled himself. An angry opening statement is fine, but the way he was combative and highly partisan himself with some democratic senators who were being very respectful of him was pretty troubling, and i think people can rightly assess that aspect of his performance separate from the allegations. Thats not a guy you want to give a job for life to imo based on that alone. 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kragar Posted September 28, 2018 Share Posted September 28, 2018 13 minutes ago, HerrDrFunk said: According to former clerks for justices, that's a huge issue that no one wants to address. Yeah, I remember hearing something about some judge in the last decade or so, whose clerks were basically the ones making the decisions for him. Whether I agree with the decision delivered or not (I probably did, as IIRC, it was a conservative-leaning judge), that situation is just plain wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneSeventeen Posted September 28, 2018 Author Share Posted September 28, 2018 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said: I think where it does have some legitimacy in this case tho is judging how Kavanaugh handled himself. An angry opening statement is fine, but the way he was combative and highly partisan himself with some democratic senators who were being very respectful of him was pretty troubling, and i think people can rightly assess that aspect of his performance separate from the allegations. Thats not a guy you want to give a job for life to imo based on that alone. I found Kavanaugh's interaction with Senator Klobuchar really distasteful and immature. He apologized after the recess. I can't help but wonder if that genuinely came from him or if someone pulled him aside and told him that he came off really poorly. “You’re saying there’s never been a case where you drank so much that you didn’t remember what happened the night before or part of what happened?” Klobuchar asked. Kavanaugh would not answer the question and instead asked the senator if she had blacked out after drinking, “If you’re asking about blackout. I don’t know, have you?” he asked. “Could you answer the question, judge?” Klobuchar replied. “So, that’s not what happened, is that your answer?” “Yeah, and I’m curious if you have.” Kavanaugh asked the senator. Klobuchar told him: “I have no drinking problem, judge.” Kavanaugh replied, “Nor do I.” Edited September 28, 2018 by OneSeventeen 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted September 28, 2018 Share Posted September 28, 2018 Just now, OneSeventeen said: I found Kavanaugh's interaction with Senator Klobuchar really distasteful and immature. He apologized after the recess. I can't help but wonder if that genuinely came from him or if someone pulled him aside and told him that he came off really poorly. “You’re saying there’s never been a case where you drank so much that you didn’t remember what happened the night before or part of what happened?” Klobuchar asked. Kavanaugh would not answer the question and instead asked the senator if she had blacked out after drinking, “If you’re asking about blackout. I don’t know, have you?” he asked. “Could you answer the question, judge?” Klobuchar replied. “So, that’s not what happened, is that your answer?” “Yeah, and I’m curious if you have.” Kavanaugh asked the senator. Klobuchar told him: “I have no drinking problem, judge.” Kavanaugh replied, “Nor do I.” I think he's been coached the whole way, but in these moments I think we saw the real guy. I have no doubt he was advised to apologize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kragar Posted September 28, 2018 Share Posted September 28, 2018 2 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said: I think where it does have some legitimacy in this case tho is judging how Kavanaugh handled himself. An angry opening statement is fine, but the way he was combative and highly partisan himself with some democratic senators who were being very respectful of him was pretty troubling, and i think people can rightly assess that aspect of his performance separate from the allegations. Thats not a guy you want to give a job for life to imo based on that alone. I see your point. But, (and note, I have not seen any of the hearings) if he didn't do anything, and he and is family are subjected to the stress of this, I can understand the reactions I have been reading about. Especially when it comes to his family. Any anger he is displaying through this, I don't think hampers his abilities at the bench. This is personal. His performance on the bench should be used to determine his ability to handle the job. Of course, if the accusations bear fruit, and he did some/all of these things, that's different. His reaction to it is not a factor for his job performance, IMO. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted September 28, 2018 Share Posted September 28, 2018 41 minutes ago, Blue Jay 22 said: I respectfully disagree with Toobin, and think that his emotions are clouding his judgement in this matter (hard for anyone not to let emotions overcome them in a matter like this). They said the exact same thing about the 2016 election when Trump won the Republican Nominee. That obviously turned out well for them (not). If the American public had no problem voting for a man with multiple sexual misconduct allegations against him over the first woman nominee to run for President, then I very much doubt that they are going to be overtly disgusted about the process the Republicans took with this judicial nominee. In fact, I would argue that the Democrats are more in the wrong than the Republicans are for withholding this information as long as they did. Let us get one thing straight - This investigation is likely to only go for 1 week because of the Democrats actions, not the Republicans. The facts laid before us are that the Democrats were aware of these allegations in late July, had recommended lawyers for Dr. Ford in mid August, after already having interviewed and questioned BK, then only brought these allegations to light 1 week before the initial confirmation vote, at which point, Kavanaugh and the Republicans learned of them for the first time. All of these are facts, not opinions. If the Democrats had initially brought these allegations up in August when they were setting up Dr. Ford with representation, the Republicans would have no choice but to allow due process to take place since the confirmation vote would be weeks away, and the FBI would have weeks/months to investigate rather than a mere 7 days. Though it would have been wrong, the Republicans didn't have to agree to have this investigation, and it was the Democrats that put them in the bind, not the other away around. Disagree. The republicans could have allowed a week for the FBI to investigate before these hearings and the entire fiasco could have been avoided. Instead they chose to blame the Democrats (as they do whenever something they don't like happens, such as the separation of families at the US-Mexico border) and call into question Dr. Ford's honesty. They could have avoided this entire mess, but that would have required agreeing with the Democrats on something and that's something that they just can't do. As far as the "exact same thing in 2016, I think this is very different. I suppose we'll see which of us is correct in November. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipBlunt Posted September 28, 2018 Share Posted September 28, 2018 (edited) 15 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said: I think where it does have some legitimacy in this case tho is judging how Kavanaugh handled himself. An angry opening statement is fine, but the way he was combative and highly partisan himself with some democratic senators who were being very respectful of him was pretty troubling, and i think people can rightly assess that aspect of his performance separate from the allegations. Thats not a guy you want to give a job for life to imo based on that alone. Exactly. Kavanagh clearly is not a suitable candidate for the position, regardless of whether he's guilty of sexual assault. He's proven to be extremely partisan and unnecessarily aggressive in light of these allegations, in a way that isn't befitting of a supreme court justice. It is befitting of Trump, Graham and other Republicans who have managed to maintain their positions in government while acting way below the bar set out for human decency and respect. Allowing a person of his questionable character and spotty past would be in line with the Republicans continued defilement of the United States. Edited September 28, 2018 by PhillipBlunt 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted September 28, 2018 Share Posted September 28, 2018 5 minutes ago, OneSeventeen said: I found Kavanaugh's interaction with Senator Klobuchar really distasteful and immature. He apologized after the recess. I can't help but wonder if that genuinely came from him or if someone pulled him aside and told him that he came off really poorly. “You’re saying there’s never been a case where you drank so much that you didn’t remember what happened the night before or part of what happened?” Klobuchar asked. Kavanaugh would not answer the question and instead asked the senator if she had blacked out after drinking, “If you’re asking about blackout. I don’t know, have you?” he asked. “Could you answer the question, judge?” Klobuchar replied. “So, that’s not what happened, is that your answer?” “Yeah, and I’m curious if you have.” Kavanaugh asked the senator. Klobuchar told him: “I have no drinking problem, judge.” Kavanaugh replied, “Nor do I.” I'm certainly no choirboy, nor did I go to an Ivy league college, but I'm of an age with Kavanagh and also "like beer". I can say with perfect honesty that I have experienced several instances where the previous night's events were fuzzy, if not a complete blank. In fact, we had a word for such situations in those days.... ....we called it "The weekend"...... 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted September 28, 2018 Share Posted September 28, 2018 Further to that point: https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/09/28/lynne-brookes-kavanaugh-classmate-cuomo-cpt-intv-vpx-bts.cnn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted September 28, 2018 Share Posted September 28, 2018 17 minutes ago, Kragar said: I see your point. But, (and note, I have not seen any of the hearings) if he didn't do anything, and he and is family are subjected to the stress of this, I can understand the reactions I have been reading about. Especially when it comes to his family. Any anger he is displaying through this, I don't think hampers his abilities at the bench. This is personal. His performance on the bench should be used to determine his ability to handle the job. Of course, if the accusations bear fruit, and he did some/all of these things, that's different. His reaction to it is not a factor for his job performance, IMO. but he was really partisan in his comments tho, its worth you checking some of them out. Judges are supposed to be committed to at least a minimum of impartiality but this guy was literally talking about this being a democrat conspiracy against him. So that to me is pretty concerning. It'll be interesting to see if anyone else is empowered to come forward next week. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted September 28, 2018 Share Posted September 28, 2018 8 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said: but he was really partisan in his comments tho, its worth you checking some of them out. Judges are supposed to be committed to at least a minimum of impartiality but this guy was literally talking about this being a democrat conspiracy against him. So that to me is pretty concerning. It'll be interesting to see if anyone else is empowered to come forward next week. Agreed. The only things missing from that rant were the words "libtard" and "snowflake"..... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChuckNORRIS4Cup Posted September 28, 2018 Share Posted September 28, 2018 Wow I was actually shocked too see they agreed on a FBI investigation wasn't expecting that, but glad they did. I saw last night a lady named Lynne Brookes finally broke her silence after seeing the hearing, which was good to see. Personally I think Brett did do these things back in high school/college, do I think he's that same guy now no I don't believe that at all, but it does seem like he was a drunk a lot back in those days and he just doesn't want to admit to it unfortunately. On a side note, does anyone else think his wife looks like Pam from the tv show The Office? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneSeventeen Posted September 28, 2018 Author Share Posted September 28, 2018 6 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said: I think he's been coached the whole way, but in these moments I think we saw the real guy. I have no doubt he was advised to apologize. If I had to speculate in a gun to my head or betting my life savings scenario, I think the following happened: Kavanaugh and Judge were drunk. Their drunken minds combined with their stereotypical teenage, ignorant, selfish, white, jock, upper-class prep school boy personalities thought it would be funny to pull a girl into a room and grope her to the point of using her as some kind sex object in a what they viewed at the time to be a joke. They might have drank more that night so they don't remember. Or they may have behaved in similar around other girls who maybe consented and enjoyed the attention she was getting from popular rich boys. So doing something similar to Dr. Blasey-Ford wasn't something to be taken seriously or remembered. Senator Leahy read Dr. Blasey-Ford's words today, "Indelible in the hippocamus is the laughter. The uproarious laughter." Based on his testimony, I do believe that he believes that this never happened. But I still also believe Dr. Blasey-Ford. 5 minutes ago, Kragar said: I see your point. But, (and note, I have not seen any of the hearings) if he didn't do anything, and he and is family are subjected to the stress of this, I can understand the reactions I have been reading about. Especially when it comes to his family. Any anger he is displaying through this, I don't think hampers his abilities at the bench. This is personal. His performance on the bench should be used to determine his ability to handle the job. Of course, if the accusations bear fruit, and he did some/all of these things, that's different. His reaction to it is not a factor for his job performance, IMO. Did Brett Kavanaugh Really Lie to Congress? - evidence of the email in his first hearing is pretty devastating to his credibility. 1 minute ago, RUPERTKBD said: I'm certainly no choirboy, nor did I go to an Ivy league college, but I'm of an age with Kavanagh and also "like beer". I can say with perfect honesty that I have experienced several instances where the previous night's events were fuzzy, if not a complete blank. In fact, we had a word for such situations in those days.... ....we called it "The weekend"...... From my perspective, Kavanaugh's defense against being painted as a drunkard is that it's impossible because he came first in his class in high school, played a lot of sports, got into Yale and did well in school there. I just found that reasoning really weak. Particularly because I go to a pretty good school myself and am on track to at least graduate cum laude (like Kavanaugh) or better. Just because you don't drink every night doesn't mean that you don't go all out when you do drink. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted September 28, 2018 Share Posted September 28, 2018 (edited) Faux News claiming "media bias" over NYT showing Ford as "calm" while Kavanagh is "angry".... http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/28/new-york-times-slammed-for-depicting-ford-as-calm-kavanaugh-as-angry-photos-are-perfect-liberal-narrative.html In other words, it's "biased" to portray things exactly as they are.... Edited September 29, 2018 by RUPERTKBD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smithers joe Posted September 28, 2018 Share Posted September 28, 2018 both the judge and the doctor, swore that they spoke the truth. only one of them can be. if the judge isn't speaking the truth, that should be resolved. if the doctor is lying, she should be punished for speaking lies about the judge. the other witnesses should have to be under oath while giving their testimonies. if the truth isn't determined then this as all just a sham. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChuckNORRIS4Cup Posted September 28, 2018 Share Posted September 28, 2018 50 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said: I think he's been coached the whole way, but in these moments I think we saw the real guy. I have no doubt he was advised to apologize. I think you're right, I think he was advised to ramble on when Democrats asked a question to limit their time to ask more, that's the impression I got. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurn Posted September 28, 2018 Share Posted September 28, 2018 2 hours ago, Blue Jay 22 said: She once saw BK and Judge at a party stand outside a bedroom in a line in what she thought was a "gang rape train." In my amateur legal opinion, neither of these claims warrant an investigation as no crime has been committed, even if these allegations are true. would you please clarify this, because as far as I know rape is illegal and in fact a crime if it happened, no matter how many participated. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now