Reasons For or Against Kavanaugh's Confirmation

[Nous]

So, qualified means -- you went through this process, you have a **** ton of experience, and a history of fairly ruling in those cases.

So now your "simple argument" is premised on the proposition that all judges who are "qualified" according to your criteria should be confirmed to the Supreme Court. Is that correct?

Define what you mean by "fairly ruling".

You agree that Merrick Garland should have been confirmed to the Court, no?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So now your "simple argument" is premised on the proposition that all judges who are "qualified" according to your criteria should be confirmed to the Supreme Court. Is that correct?

Define what you mean by "fairly ruling".

You agree that Merrick Garland should have been confirmed to the Court, no?

Of course not. Because of . . . reasons.

 

[Mindmaster]

Um yeah. Because that's not even remotely similar to attempting to rape someone. Hello!

Now that you mention it though, Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg withdrew his nomination back in 1987 because it was found out he smoked marijuana several times. My, oh my, haven't the times changed!

If this wasn't the exact playbook they've already used on Clarence Thomas I'd probably respect it, but it's just the same old ****. Partisan antics to the extreme... Until there is evidence... if there is evidence I am willing to hear it, and reconsider my opinion... Right now I have nothing to consider -- it's just a bunch of party line bs not something that should enter into anyone's mind.

As far as the drugs thing, I actually don't care how people chill so long as they're doing their jobs. I think you can responsibly take anything, or abuse it -- but those are psychological problems, not of chemical origin. Legislating one's body is something I'm completely against -- I'm against abortion, but just because I see it as stupidity in most cases. I'm not against someone's right to have one... Your body is yours and the only thing you truly rule, IMHO. Other's shouldn't have a say of it.

 

[Mindmaster]

So now your "simple argument" is premised on the proposition that all judges who are "qualified" according to your criteria should be confirmed to the Supreme Court. Is that correct?

Define what you mean by "fairly ruling".

You agree that Merrick Garland should have been confirmed to the Court, no?

I have no doubt of Garland's qualifications, but that's irrelevant. This is just whataboutism, it doesn't really need to be addressed. The majority party in Senate is going to push it's own nominees when they control it and the Executive branch, so the point is?

Secondly, I have no idea where your primary assertion is going besides hyperbole. There are hundreds of qualified people for the job on a technical basis, but only one was nominated. I have no doubt that most of them were considered as most administrations are extremely picky about who they select.

None of this vexes me in the slightest, I'm not anti-Trump. Anyone he appoints is going to be very centrist like him, or someone who whom periodically goes against the party line for good reasons. It seems Trump mostly favors constitutionalists in his appointments and that's a far cry from staunch conservatism.

 

[Nous]

I have no doubt of Garland's qualifications, but that's irrelevant.

Obviously you cannot state a valid and sound argument premised on your "qualified" adjective, in order to
conclude that Kavanaugh should be confirmed, without implying that Garland should have likewise been confirmed. Right?

 

[Mindmaster]

Obviously you cannot state a valid and sound argument premised on your "qualified" adjective, in order to
conclude that Kavanaugh should be confirmed, without implying that Garland should have likewise been confirmed. Right?

Obviously, your attempts to misrepresent my commentary are noted. But, that's, OK, I've played this game before. I explained exactly what I thought qualified meant.

 

[Salvador]

Until Christine Blasey Ford's unproven allegation that she had been groped by Judge Kavanaugh, the American Bar Association unequivocally rated Judge Kavanaugh as "well-qualified" for the position of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. If the soon to be completed FBI investigation finds no evidence to support the accusations of sexual harassment behavior from Brett Kavanaugh, then of couse, the American Bar Association should reaffirm their ranking of Judge Kavanaugh to be "well-qualified" for the position of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court

So then, Judge Kavanaugh should be confirmed as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.

https://www.americanbar.org/content...1-BrettKavanaughratingletter.authcheckdam.pdf

 

[Nous]

Obviously, your attempts to misrepresent my commentary are noted. But, that's, OK, I've played this game before. I explained exactly what I thought qualified meant.

I haven't misrepresented anything you have said. The OP asks for arguments for or against confirming Kavanaugh to the Court, and I have repeated that request to you several times, but you have not stated any such argument. You have asserted that he should be confirmed because he is "qualified," but you haven't been able to define what you mean by that adjective, particularly you haven't been able to define what you mean by "fairly ruling". I would guess that you haven't read any of Kavanaugh's opinions or those of any other federal judge. If I am wrong, then tell us which ones you have read.

Kavanaugh has written many dissents on the Circuit Court, and otherwise has often not joined the majority. If your vacuous term "fairly ruling" correlates with majority opinions in any way, then he has failed to "rule fairly" many times, indeed seemingly an inordinate number of times. The Supreme Court has held differently than Kavanaugh's opinions many times.

You have written hundreds of words in multiple posts here but you haven't argued that Kavanaugh should be confirmed to the Court. If you are unable to make such argument, you should be honest enough to just say so. No one needs more partisan claptrap.

 

[Nous]

Until Christine Blasey Ford's unproven allegation that she had been groped by Judge Kavanaugh, the American Bar Association unequivocally rated Judge Kavanaugh as "well-qualified" for the position of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. If the soon to be completed FBI investigation finds no evidence to support the accusations of sexual harassment behavior from Brett Kavanaugh, then of couse, the American Bar Association should reaffirm their ranking of Judge Kavanaugh to be "well-qualified" for the position of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court

So then, Judge Kavanaugh should be confirmed as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.

https://www.americanbar.org/content...1-BrettKavanaughratingletter.authcheckdam.pdf

Thank you. My views have exactly mirrored the ABA's pronouncements on the matters at the time the association pronounced them or soon thereafter. I initially agreed that Kavanaugh was 'well qualified' according to the ABA'S criteria of integrity, competence and judicial temperament. After the hearing, I agreed there should be a "careful" investigation by the FBI.

I have since concluded Kavanaugh lacks the integrity and judicial temperament for federal court. I further agree with Yale Law School and the Jesuit Review that Kavanaugh should withdraw his nomination. There are bounteous well-qualified judges who could fill the slot on the Court.

 

[Nous]

On the drinking while 18 issue. He could legally buy alcohol at 18, at least not far from Georgetown where he studied after he graduate high school. The drinking age was 21 in Maryland at that time, but just across the border, and Bethesda is Maryland is right on the border, he could buy alcohol legally in D.C..

Now I'm not sure Kavanaugh has explicitly misrepresented the law in Maryland.

Of course, his whole purpose in jabbering about the law was to suggest that his teenage drinking was legal, which is not true. Apparently his teenage drinking didn't all happen within the DC city limits. Apparently he regularly engaged in underage drinking at Yale.

He should have been honest about it. He lacks integrity.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Now I'm not sure Kavanaugh has explicitly misrepresented the law in Maryland.

Of course, his whole purpose in jabbering about the law was to suggest that his teenage drinking was legal, which is not true. Apparently his teenage drinking didn't all happen within the DC city limits. Apparently he regularly engaged in underage drinking at Yale.

He should have been honest about it. He lacks integrity.

As more comes out it appears that he may not have been exactly honest.

 

[Nous]

Well, I'm glad to see that no one here has really attempted to argue that Kavanaugh should be confirmed to the Court. I assume this reflects what is happening in the discourse on this issue among the general public.

According to reports, apparently the Republican majority on the Senate Judiciary Committee and the President have prevented the FBI from collecting information necessary to assess Kavanaugh's credibility in his testimony at the September 27th hearing. This fact only indicates their knowledge of Kavanaugh's lack of credibility in his testimony. Therefore he should not be confirmed to the Supreme Court.

Interestingly more than 1700 law professors have signed a letter to the Senate attesting that at the September 27th hearing Kavanaugh displayed a lack of judicial temperament that would be disqualifying for any court, but especially for elevation to the Supreme Court:

. . . Judge Kavanaugh exhibited a lack of commitment to judicious inquiry. Instead of being open to the necessary search for accuracy, Judge Kavanaugh was repeatedly aggressive with questioners. Even in his prepared remarks, Judge Kavanaugh described the hearing as partisan, referring to it as “a calculated and orchestrated political hit,” rather than acknowledging the need for the Senate, faced with new information, to try to understand what had transpired. Instead of trying to sort out with reason and care the allegations that were raised, Judge Kavanaugh responded in an intemperate, inflammatory and partial manner, as he interrupted and, at times, was discourteous to senators.​

Opinion | The Senate Should Not Confirm Kavanaugh. Signed, 1,700+ Law Professors (and Counting).

The letter goes on to note the federal statutes governing judicial bias and the requirement of recusal when there is a risk of such lack of impartiality.

Of course, if Kavanaugh is confirmed and the Senate and House flip in the upcoming midterms, there looms the possibility of his impeachment. Federal judges are routinely impeached after conviction of a crime, and lying to either Congress or the FBI is a crime.

 

[Salvador]

Of course, if Kavanaugh is confirmed and the Senate and House flip in the upcoming midterms, there looms the possibility of his impeachment. Federal judges are routinely impeached after conviction of a crime, and lying to either Congress or the FBI is a crime.

What crime has Judge Kavanaugh committed or what lie has Judge Kavanaugh made to those investigating the false allegations made against him?

 

[Salvador]

Thank you. My views have exactly mirrored the ABA's pronouncements on the matters at the time the association pronounced them or soon thereafter. I initially agreed that Kavanaugh was 'well qualified' according to the ABA'S criteria of integrity, competence and judicial temperament. After the hearing, I agreed there should be a "careful" investigation by the FBI.

I have since concluded Kavanaugh lacks the integrity and judicial temperament for federal court. I further agree with Yale Law School and the Jesuit Review that Kavanaugh should withdraw his nomination. There are bounteous well-qualified judges who could fill the slot on the Court.

If false allegations were made against you and your friends, then you would naturally be upset about this. Right!

 

[Subduction Zone]

What crime has Judge Kavanaugh committed or what lie has Judge Kavanaugh made to those investigating the false allegations made against him?

Allegedly lying about his drinking under oath. He probably could be impeached by the House on those charges, it will almost certainly be Democratic and a simple majority is all that it takes. It is highly unlikely that he would be convicted, that takes a 2/3 vote in the Senate and unless the Republicans have a serious "come to Jesus" moment after the election that will almost certainly never happen.

 

[Salvador]

Allegedly lying about his drinking under oath. He probably could be impeached by the House on those charges, it will almost certainly be Democratic and a simple majority is all that it takes. It is highly unlikely that he would be convicted, that takes a 2/3 vote in the Senate and unless the Republicans have a serious "come to Jesus" moment after the election that will almost certainly never happen.

Judge Kavanaugh admitted to drinking beer, and there is no proof he ever had "blacked out" from drinking. What exactly about his drinking habits did he lie to Congress or the FBI?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Judge Kavanaugh admitted to drinking beer, and there is no proof he ever had "blacked out" from drinking. What exactly about his drinking habits did he lie to Congress or the FBI?

Others have brought up claims that he drank far more than he testified to in congress. And drop the word "proof". There is no "proof" of a positive sort either way. What exist is evidence. The evidence may be enough to convince the Democrats to try to remove him, but there clearly is not enough to succeed at this point in time.

 

[Nous]

What crime has Judge Kavanaugh committed or what lie has Judge Kavanaugh made to those investigating the false allegations made against him?

As far as I know, the public doesn't have sufficient information to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he has committed perjury. Possibly the most concrete evidence of such crime involves his contradictory responses relating to stolen emails, which senators Leahy and Graham asked about:

Brett Kavanaugh lied under oath, Sen. Patrick Leahy says. And he showed some evidence to prove it.


Brett Kavanaugh Perjured Himself. He Should Be Impeached From The D.C. Circuit Soon.

 

[Nous]

If false allegations were made against you and your friends, then you would naturally be upset about this. Right!

If I were nominated for the Supreme Court, I certainly wouldn't say the belligerent and frankly delusional things Kavanaugh said during the hearing. I am able to maintain a degree of decorum and civility even toward those who are asking me searching questions. (Of course I rarely exhibit such decorum here, but I'm considering doing so soon.)

 

[Nous]

Allegedly lying about his drinking under oath. He probably could be impeached by the House on those charges, it will almost certainly be Democratic and a simple majority is all that it takes. It is highly unlikely that he would be convicted, that takes a 2/3 vote in the Senate and unless the Republicans have a serious "come to Jesus" moment after the election that will almost certainly never happen.

I am unaware of a case where a judge has been criminally convicted but Congress has refused to impeach and remove.