Kavanaugh Hearings

[Alflives]

1 hour ago, OneSeventeen said:

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. 

For how long have the Americans been choosing this way?  

[Kragar]

27 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. 

if he is truly innocent, then this is a conspiracy.  If he isn't innocent, then he's a lying tool.  There are pieces of this that support either side of this situation.

 

I understand that women don't often speak up right away, and horrible abuse etc. can be suppressed internally for decades.  There are women in my immediate family who were abused, one who was believed, and one who was mostly ignored when they finally said something about it.  My own abuse doesn't come into play here.  I don't remember it, never will (who can remember being groped as a toddler?), and the prick who did it is long dead.  I don't understand the Dems sitting on this info for so long, aside from political gain involving mid-terms.  I am concerned how the depths of the accusations get worse as the credibility lowers (i.e. Dr Ford, based on what I have heard is the most credible of the three, but the alleged actions were least offensive, while the third woman to come out has problems with her story that are easily picked at).  Almost sounds like trial balloons.. .oh, this didn't work, so we need to get sicker.

 

Of course, he could have done all this, and Dr Ford stepping up gave others the courage to come forward.  Personally, I have some doubts, and until better corroboration happens, I'm hard pressed to see this as more than a conspiracy, as the timing matters, IMO.  It's not like there are politicians on either side of the aisle who wouldn't let anything stop them from getting their way.  This just has some appearances of being some Dems' turn.

 

Ideally, it would be good to learn the truth, and whoever is in the wrong gets punished hard, as much as is within the law.  Because those in the wrong deserve it.

[peaches5]

The problem here and the Republican voters have a point is Bill Clinton. The guy lost his license to practice law because of his sexual misconduct. Why aren't the Democrats calling for Bill's head? It's all political by BOTH sides.

 

Anyway, without a doubt this guy did it you can tell just by his demeanor and how he refused to say her last name she had at the time of her the alleged assault. So, technically he wasn't lying. Her last name changed when she got married by him constantly referring to her last name and using the name she married into he isn't lying. It's a technicality and he is making sure to be very careful how he answers and what he answers. That tells you, without doubt, he did it and he knows it. 

 

This guy is a giant baby my god. He has no business being on this panel. The only reason he is there is that Trump knows he can't get impeached if he is on the panel.

[HerrDrFunk]

6 minutes ago, peaches5 said:

The problem here and the Republican voters have a point is Bill Clinton. The guy lost his license to practice law because of his sexual misconduct. Why aren't the Democrats calling for Bill's head? It's all political by BOTH sides.

 

Anyway, without a doubt this guy did it you can tell just by his demeanor and how he refused to say her last name she had at the time of her the alleged assault. So, technically he wasn't lying. Her last name changed when she got married by him constantly referring to her last name and using the name she married into he isn't lying. It's a technicality and he is making sure to be very careful how he answers and what he answers. That tells you, without doubt, he did it and he knows it. 

 

This guy is a giant baby my god. He has no business being on this panel. The only reason he is there is that Trump knows he can't get impeached if he is on the panel.

Is Bill Clinton up for SCOTUS nomination? 

[peaches5]

12 minutes ago, Kragar said:

if he is truly innocent, then this is a conspiracy.  If he isn't innocent, then he's a lying tool.  There are pieces of this that support either side of this situation.

 

I understand that women don't often speak up right away, and horrible abuse etc. can be suppressed internally for decades.  There are women in my immediate family who were abused, one who was believed, and one who was mostly ignored when they finally said something about it.  My own abuse doesn't come into play here.  I don't remember it, never will (who can remember being groped as a toddler?), and the prick who did it is long dead.  I don't understand the Dems sitting on this info for so long, aside from political gain involving mid-terms.  I am concerned how the depths of the accusations get worse as the credibility lowers (i.e. Dr Ford, based on what I have heard is the most credible of the three, but the alleged actions were least offensive, while the third woman to come out has problems with her story that are easily picked at).  Almost sounds like trial balloons.. .oh, this didn't work, so we need to get sicker.

 

Of course, he could have done all this, and Dr Ford stepping up gave others the courage to come forward.  Personally, I have some doubts, and until better corroboration happens, I'm hard pressed to see this as more than a conspiracy, as the timing matters, IMO.  It's not like there are politicians on either side of the aisle who wouldn't let anything stop them from getting their way.  This just has some appearances of being some Dems' turn.

 

Ideally, it would be good to learn the truth, and whoever is in the wrong gets punished hard, as much as is within the law.  Because those in the wrong deserve it.

The thing is when you recall a memory you're remembering the last time you remembered it. If over time you've added things to it which can happen over the course of decades what actually happened might be nowhere near what you remembered. There are people who may or may not have been raped or assaulted and can't put a face to this person if they do or don't exist, it could all be their imagination, and then suddenly see a picture from their youth or start digging for answers and then suddenly convince themselves oh that is the person who assaulted me and after a few more decades they've added so many things that may or may not have happened. It really gets to the point where unless there is corroborating evidence that person's view of what happened can't be trusted. Too long has past its why you need to come forward as quickly as possible because now no matter if this happened or not there's not highly unlikely to be any evidence...

 

This guy is honestly an idiot and it's so obvious he did it though I just don't think there will be evidence to say he did.

[peaches5]

3 minutes ago, HerrDrFunk said:

Is Bill Clinton up for SCOTUS nomination? 

His wife just ran from president and was the leader or the democratic party and all those people who voted for her had no problem giving their votes to someone who is married to and defended a sexual predator, that is proven by law to be one. Now when a Republican judge is being nominated all these people are crying out... they're crocodile tears as far as I am concerned. 

 

Both sides are just as bad as the other. 

[RUPERTKBD]

2 minutes ago, peaches5 said:

His wife just ran from president and was the leader or the democratic party and all those people who voted for her had no problem giving their votes to someone who is married to and defended a sexual predator, that is proven by law to be one. Now when a Republican judge is being nominated all these people are crying out... they're crocodile tears as far as I am concerned. 

 

Both sides are just as bad as the other. 

So people shouldn't have voted for Hillary, because her husband cheated on her?

[johngould21]

2 hours 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.”

It was early this morning when I posted his interaction with Klobuchar, that alone would be reason to pull his nomination. This guy has a temper, is lying and, truth be damned, I'm going to be given a title for life. I see a trend in his lifestyle, and his appointment would be a dangerous and slippery slope.

[Undrafted]

A friend from the US sent me this.  It's pretty funny:

 

 

 

[SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME]

6 minutes ago, peaches5 said:

His wife just ran from president and was the leader or the democratic party and all those people who voted for her had no problem giving their votes to someone who is married to and defended a sexual predator, that is proven by law to be one. Now when a Republican judge is being nominated all these people are crying out... they're crocodile tears as far as I am concerned. 

 

Both sides are just as bad as the other. 

I’m pretty sure Bill Clinton was never disbarred but instead had his law license suspended for five years. AFAIK, he’s actually been eligible for reinstatement for years, but has just never bothered. And the only thing that was actually proven by law is that he lied under oath.

 

That all said, I do believe that anyone with Bill Clinton’s history of sexual misconduct allegations should, and likely would, be disqualified from something like a SCOTUS appointment. Well, at least as a Democratic nominee. I’ll wait until the Kavanaugh thing fully plays out before I comment on what’s actually considered disqualifying from the GOP side.

 

I would also agree that the way the Dems responded to the Bill Clinton situation was, and remains, an embarrassment. Many people who consider themselves progressives, and even feminists, were willing to sell out women with highly credible accusations against Clinton, simply because he was, at least policy-wise, considered an ally. This remains a huge black eye and not one easily forgotten (or forgiven).

[Angry Goose]

8 hours ago, Chicken. said:

 

Im obviously in the minority here but he seems genuine and not to discount Fords past trauma since it was probably someone else who did the assaulting... she just conveniently remembers it was him and it was conveniently brought forward a week before the vote idk.

I had zero interest in comment on this issue but this is just trash. Im glad others have called you out on this nonsense already, and if you were actually an intelligent person and of high character you would apologize for such a baseless and demeaning comment.  

[peaches5]

44 minutes ago, SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME said:

I’m pretty sure Bill Clinton was never disbarred but instead had his law license suspended for five years. AFAIK, he’s actually been eligible for reinstatement for years, but has just never bothered. And the only thing that was actually proven by law is that he lied under oath.

 

That all said, I do believe that anyone with Bill Clinton’s history of sexual misconduct allegations should, and likely would, be disqualified from something like a SCOTUS appointment. Well, at least as a Democratic nominee. I’ll wait until the Kavanaugh thing fully plays out before I comment on what’s actually considered disqualifying from the GOP side.

 

I would also agree that the way the Dems responded to the Bill Clinton situation was, and remains, an embarrassment. Many people who consider themselves progressives, and even feminists, were willing to sell out women with highly credible accusations against Clinton, simply because he was, at least policy-wise, considered an ally. This remains a huge black eye and not one easily forgotten (or forgiven).

Yea I saw after I said that he resigned before he could be disbarred but still doesn’t take away what he has done to women and how his wife and democratic supporters weren’t appalled as they are now is just hypercritical and political. 

[EternalCanuckFan]

I have to give credit to Senator Jeff Flake for making the demand that he did.  Now, one week to investigate isn't a great deal of time to do anything, but an investigation has to be warranted given that the testimonies of both Kavanaugh and Ford were unhelpful with arriving any closer to the truth.  It's impossible to know if we'll ever really know what exactly happened.  I'm not dismissing Ford's story - I think her story provides credible grounds to conduct an investigation which is what should have been done from the moment her story was shared instead of this political merry-go-round that the world is being forced to witness.

[Ilunga]

8 hours ago, inane said:

Yeah, 'left' or 'right' or whatever, that place is a hot mess. Watching an empire fail is ugly and I just hope they don't tear down many others as they do it.

This Empire will fail,not in the same way as say Rome.

The US still is the largest economy and even the earliest predictions of China passing them seem to be sometime mid to late next decade.

More importantly their military is by far the most powerful. Just the destructive power of one their aircraft carriers is amazing, let alone their submarine fleet.

I don't even believe this is the total end of the 2 party preferred system.

We saw a minor example of that when Ralph Nader ran in 2000 

[Ilunga]

8 hours ago, smithers joe said:

 

power corrupts. 

Best comment in this thread so far Joe.

[bolt]

How does out of 325 million people you end up with Donald Trump as president and Kavanaugh as a supreme court judge? 

Edited September 29, 2018 by bolt

[Ilunga]

4 hours ago, RUPERTKBD said:

 

 

People wonder why women are hesitant to come forward about sexual assault. All they need to do is read posts like yours to know the answer to that.

Well said Rupert.

[smithers joe]

2 hours ago, peaches5 said:

His wife just ran from president and was the leader or the democratic party and all those people who voted for her had no problem giving their votes to someone who is married to and defended a sexual predator, that is proven by law to be one. Now when a Republican judge is being nominated all these people are crying out... they're crocodile tears as far as I am concerned. 

 

Both sides are just as bad as the other. 

your probably right but it doesn't justify any of them sexually assaulting women. one law for all.  plus one for trump.

[Ilunga]

3 hours ago, OneSeventeen said:

 

 

At the same time, the court of public opinion still has its functions. We too serve as gatekeepers of justice by letting our government know what we believe is important in terms of its legislative and legal agenda. Our voices and our participation matters. 

Bang on Brother.

We the people elect our leaders then they act in our name.

Some people blame them however if elected officials are not enacting our will it is our duty to inform them of this fact.

[Ilunga]

3 hours ago, HerrDrFunk said:

According to former clerks for justices, that's a huge issue that no one wants to address.

I wonder why ?

 

Sarcastic emoticon !